Where can i find the proof to this result?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sutupidmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proposition regarding the expression for the sum of the r-th powers of the first n positive integers, specifically whether it can be represented as a polynomial in n with certain coefficients. Participants are exploring the validity of this proposition and seeking proof or references for it.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that there exist constants a_1, a_2, ..., a_{r+1} such that the sum of the r-th powers can be expressed as a polynomial in n.
  • Another participant argues that the proposition is false, citing examples where the left-hand side is not divisible by n, suggesting that the coefficients must be integers for the proposition to hold.
  • A later reply counters that the coefficients a_i can be real numbers, which may allow the proposition to be true without the divisibility condition.
  • One participant proposes a trivial case where all but one coefficient are zero, which would satisfy the proposition under certain conditions.
  • Another participant mentions Bernoulli polynomials as a potential avenue for exploration related to the proposition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the proposition, with no consensus reached. Some believe it can be true under certain conditions, while others maintain it is false.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of the coefficients (whether they must be integers or can be real numbers) and the implications of these assumptions on the validity of the proposition.

sutupidmath
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
4
If n and r are positve integers, then there are constants

[tex]a_1,a_2,a_3,...,a_{r+1}[/tex]

such that:

[tex]1^r+2^r+3^r+...+n^r= a_1n+a_2n^2+a_3n^3+...+a_{r+1}n^{r+1}[/tex]


So,as the title says, can anyone either show me how to prove this, or rederect me to some other source(book, webpage) where i could find such proof.

This is not hw!


Regards!
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
As it stands, the proposition is false. It implies that the left-hand side is divisible by n. But [itex]1^3 + 2^3[/itex] is not divisible by 2, neither is [itex]1^3 + \ldots + 6^3[/itex] divisible by 6.

The right-hand side looks very much like a base-n expansion, though, so if you simply forgot to include an [itex]a_0 < n[/itex] term, the proof might go:

[itex]1^r + \ldots + n^r \leq (n+1)n^r \leq n^{r+2}[/itex], and every number lower than [itex]n^{r+2}[/itex] can be written in the desired form.
 
Preno said:
As it stands, the proposition is false. It implies that the left-hand side is divisible by n. But [itex]1^3 + 2^3[/itex] is not divisible by 2, neither is [itex]1^3 + \ldots + 6^3[/itex] divisible by 6.

.

Dear Preno,

I thank you for your reply. I don't think the proposition is false. Your reasoning would be true if the coefficients [tex]a_i, i \in N[/tex] would be asked to be integers. But there is no such restriction on the coefficients, they can be any real number.

In general, as you know, we say that an integer n is divisible by another integer m,iff there exists another integer r, such that n=rm. but here like i said the coefficients are not restricted.



The source where i got this suggests that this can be proven using the theory of linear differential equations, but i see no such relation so far.

Any suggestions?
 
If the [tex]a_i[/tex] are real numbers, the proposition is trivial. Let [tex]a_2 = \cdots = a_{r + 1} = 0[/tex] and let [tex]a_1 = \left( 1^r + \cdots + n^r \right) / n[/tex], and the proposition holds.
 
Bernouilli polynomials
 
Moo Of Doom said:
If the [tex]a_i[/tex] are real numbers, the proposition is trivial. Let [tex]a_2 = \cdots = a_{r + 1} = 0[/tex] and let [tex]a_1 = \left( 1^r + \cdots + n^r \right) / n[/tex], and the proposition holds.

He said "constants" to rule out this case. He wants to generalize:

1+2+...+n = n^2/2+n/2

1^2+2^2+...+n^2 = n^3/3+n^2/2+n/6
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K