Monday, 13 May 2013

algebra precalculus - Finite summation












What is the proof without induction for :



(1) ni=1 i2=n(n+1)(2n+1)6



(2) ni=1 i3=n2(n+1)24


Answer



One can give a proof that has a combinatorial flavour. We want to choose 3 numbers from the numbers 0,1,2,3,,n. This can be done in (n+13) ways. We do the counting in another way.



Perhaps the smallest chosen number is 0. Then the other two can be chosen in (n2) ways. Perhaps the smallest chosen number is 1. Then the other two can be chosen in (n12) ways. Continue. Finally, the smallest of the chosen numbers could be n2. Then the other two can be chosen in (22) ways.




Reversing the order of summation we get
(22)+(32)++(n2)=(n+13).


Now use the fact that (k2)=k(k1)2. We find that
12nk=1k212nk=1k=(n+1)(n)(n1)3!.

We know a closed form formula for nk=1k, so from the above we can get a closed form for nk=1k2.



A similar idea works for k3. We use the combinatorial fact that
nk=3(k3)=(n+14),


which is proved by a counting argument similar to the one we used for the closed form of nk=2(k2).




Remarks: 1. If I put my logic hat on, the answer to your question becomes entirely different. The result cannot be proved without induction. Indeed almost nothing about the natural numbers can be proved without using induction. In the Peano axioms, omit the induction axiom scheme. We end up with a system that is very very weak. Almost any argument that has a , or a "and so on" in it involves induction. Indeed the very *definition of nk=1k2 requires induction.



2. The proof of nk=2(k2=)(n+13), and its generalizations, is very natural, and the resulting formula has a nice structure. The closed form expression for nk=1k2 is definitely less attractive. It turns out that one can give a slightly messy but purely combinatorial proof of the formula
nk=14k2=(2k+23).


so the somewhat "unnatural" n(n+1)(2n+1)6 turns out to "come from" the more structured 142n(2n+1)(2n+2)6.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find limh0sin(ha)h without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...