What is the solution to r^(n+1)*(1-r) in calculus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roscoe1989
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the formula for the sum of a geometric series, specifically the equation 1 + r + r^2 + ... + r^n = (1 - r^(n+1)) / (1 - r) for |r| < 1. Participants clarify that the base case for induction can include n = 0, where both sides equal 1. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the inductive proof structure, including the base case and inductive step, to validate the formula for all n ≥ 0.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of geometric series and their properties
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction
  • Basic knowledge of limits and convergence for series
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of mathematical induction in detail
  • Learn about geometric series and their convergence criteria
  • Explore proofs involving series and sequences
  • Practice problems related to summing geometric series
USEFUL FOR

Students of mathematics, educators teaching calculus, and anyone interested in understanding geometric series and mathematical proofs.

  • #31
It's probably that I tell you what Induction is (in brief form) first.

(1) Base Case. Usually we take n = 1 or 0. We show that it (S(n)) is true first

(2) Inductive Step. Assume that (1) is true and then you will write your Inductive hypothesis and show that it is true for S(n+1).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
flyingpig said:
By Induction? No

If only though, if only...

You don't really need induction for an informal proof. See my long buried comment in post 14.
 
  • #33
Roscoe1989 said:
but what does it mean on the LHS?

It's a sum and on the right hand side, it is a formula of the sum. The powers on the LHS keep going up and you just set the right hand side with n = 0.

Where n is the power.
 
  • #34
Dick said:
You don't really need induction for an informal proof. See my long buried comment in post 14.

Yeah I probably wouldn't do that [induction] either. But Ros asked for

Roscoe1989 said:
prove by induction on n that
1+r+r^2...+r^=1-r^n+1/1-r
if r doesn't equal 1

in post 3
 
  • #35
Dick and flyingpig, you are missing, I think, that roscoe1989 doesn't know what happens in the LHS when n=0.
When n=0, you don't get 1+r²+r³+...+r⁰.
1+r²+r³+...+r^n is just a notation. When n=0 you simply get r⁰ and this is worth 1. So when n=0, both the LHS and RHS is worth 1, so the equality holds, meaning that it does makes sense to consider n=0 (it's a possible/allowed value for n).
 
  • #36
ok...so when the right side equals the left side... what does that mean?
 
  • #37
flyingpig said:
Yeah I probably wouldn't do that [induction] either. But Ros asked for



in post 3

Ok, missed the "induction" bit in there.
 
  • #38
fluidistic said:
Dick and flyingpig, you are missing, I think, that roscoe1989 doesn't know what happens in the LHS when n=0.
When n=0, you don't get 1+r²+r³+...+r⁰.
1+r²+r³+...+r^n is just a notation. When n=0 you simply get r⁰ and this is worth 1. So when n=0, both the LHS and RHS is worth 1, so the equality holds, meaning that it does makes sense to consider n=0 (it's a possible/allowed value for n).

Yeah and I am trying to lead Ros to that.
 
  • #39
ooooooh, ok
 
  • #40
Roscoe1989 said:
ok...so when the right side equals the left side... what does that mean?

That means the equal sign worked!

flyingpig said:
It's probably that I tell you what Induction is (in brief form) first.

(1) Base Case. Usually we take n = 1 or 0. We show that it (S(n)) is true first

(2) Inductive Step. Assume that (1) is true and then you will write your Inductive hypothesis and show that it is true for S(n+1).
 
  • #41
Roscoe1989 said:
ooooooh, ok

I just led to the base case, so we just did (1).
 
  • #42
so then to prove (2), we would have to do n+1, which, in our case, is 0+1=1 and that would give us 1-r^2 / 1-r right?
 
  • #43
Where did you get the 0 from...? I have to go to sleep soon...
 
  • #44
sorry, i meant 1+1=2. you've been really helpful, and don't let me keep you awake! :)
 
  • #45
I have to leave now because by the time I get back, I would be very late already. I will leave you with this.

When I said "n + 1" , I mean for a general n. The base case is when we take the most fundamental n. It just happened to be 0.

So you have to show this

1 + r + r^2 +...+r^{n+1} = \frac{1 - r^{n + 1 + 1}}{1 - r}
 
  • #46
thanks flyingpig, you've been a great help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K