Summing up an Arithmetic Progression via Integration?

Click For Summary
Integrating the general term of an arithmetic progression (A.P.) does not yield its sum because integration calculates area rather than summing discrete integers. The integral of the term function results in a polynomial expression, while the sum of the A.P. follows a specific formula. An inequality is established, stating that the sum of function values at integers is bounded by the integral of the function over the same interval. For polynomial expressions, Bernoulli polynomials can be applied, but the integral and sum will not generally equate. The discussion emphasizes that the integral's purpose is distinct from summing discrete values.
varadgautam
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Why doesn't the integration of the general term of an A.P. give its sum? Integration sums up finctions, so if I integrate the general term function of an A.P., I should get its sum.
Like
2,4,6,8,...
T=2+(n-1)2=2n
\int T dn=n^2 ..(1)

Sum=S=(n/2)(4+(n-1)2)=(n/2)(2+2n)=n+(n^2) ..(2)

Why aren't these two equal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I see no reason at all why the integral should equal the sum. The integral doesn't sum integers, it calculates area.

That said, we do have the following inequality (this does not hold in general!):

\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{f(k)}\leq \int_0^n{f(x)dx}\leq\sum_{k=1}^n{f(k)}

This inequality is the best you can do, I fear...
 
micromass said:
I see no reason at all why the integral should equal the sum. The integral doesn't sum integers, it calculates area.

That said, we do have the following inequality (this does not hold in general!):

\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{f(k)}\leq \int_0^n{f(x)dx}\leq\sum_{k=1}^n{f(k)}

This inequality is the best you can do, I fear...

If you are dealing with a polynomial expression, you can use what are called Bernoulli polynomials.

If the expression is not a simple one (as in some finite polynomial expression), then the inequality is a good bet, unless there are some tighter constraints for the specific expression.
 
Clarification:
Haven't you dropped a sign?
On the left hand integral, after integrating, I see
-ln|1 - x|

On the next or final line, the leading negative disappears.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K