Find the expression for the sum of this power series

In summary: But why does that matter when the expression has been re-written? isn't is possible to solve it from the re-written...Yes, it is possible to solve it from the re-written expression, but the q term will not cancel and you will get x^2*e^x.Yes, it is possible to solve it from the re-written expression, but the q term will not cancel and you will get x^2*e^x.
  • #1
Kqwert
160
3

Homework Statement


Hello,

I need to find an expression for the sum of the given power series
gif.gif


The Attempt at a Solution


I think that one has to use a known Maclaurin series, for example the series of e^x. I know that I can rewrite

gif.gif
, which makes the expression even more similar to the Maclaurin series for e^x. Any help?
 

Attachments

  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    754 bytes · Views: 637
  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    534 bytes · Views: 373
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Kqwert said:
I think that one has to use a known Maclaurin series, for example the series of e^x.
This is a good idea. You may want to use the fact that ##n = (n-1) + 1## rather than going for getting ##n!## in the denominator though.
 
  • #3
Orodruin said:
This is a good idea. You may want to use the fact that ##n = (n-1) + 1## rather than going for getting ##n!## in the denominator though.
How does that help me?
 
  • #4
Kqwert said:
How does that help me?
Did you try doing it?
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #5
Orodruin said:
Did you try doing it?
Yes, but not sure what it helps me? Should I replace all n's in the expression by n = (n-1)+1?
 
  • #6
No, just in the numerator to split your sum into two.

It also helps if you state what you get when you do so - otherwise I have to guess what stage you are at.
 
  • #7
So I get this expression?

gif.gif
 

Attachments

  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    1 KB · Views: 337
  • #8
I assume you mean ##x^n##. So split it into two sums and treat each sum separately. You may want to simplify the second term change the summation variable in both sums.
 
  • #9
Orodruin said:
I assume you mean ##x^n##. So split it into two sums and treat each sum separately. You may want to simplify the second term change the summation variable in both sums.
Yeah, I mean x^n! What do you mean by change the summation variable. Is it like write k = n-1?
 
  • #10
Kqwert said:
Is it like write k = n-1?
Yes, that could be a reasonable substitution for one of the terms.
 
  • #11
Orodruin said:
Yes, that could be a reasonable substitution for one of the terms.
What about the last term though? Not sure what the best simplification of that is.
 
  • #12
Kqwert said:
What about the last term though? Not sure what the best simplification of that is.
What is ##(n-1)/(n-1)!##?
 
  • #13
Orodruin said:
What is ##(n-1)/(n-1)!##?
You can split that expression into two as well..?
 
  • #14
What is ##(n-1)!##?
 
  • #15
(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(n-4) etc.. I guess you can write 1/(n-2)!, but doubt that is it?
 
  • #16
Kqwert said:
(n-1)(n-2)(n-3)(n-4) etc.. I guess you can write 1/(n-2)!, but doubt that is it?
Why do you doubt that?
 
  • #17
Orodruin said:
Why do you doubt that?
Hm, I guess I can substitute k = n-2, which makes it into the exponential Maclaurin Series?
 
  • #18
Kqwert said:
Hm, I guess I can substitute k = n-2, which makes it into the exponential Maclaurin Series?
Does it? What exactly do you obtain?
 
  • #19
So i am getting a little lost here.
gif.gif

This is where we are right?
By substituting k = n-1 into the first expression we get a very similar expression to the e^x series,
gif.gif


in the second expression we can do q = n - 2 and get..

gif.gif


is this the way?
 

Attachments

  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    1.1 KB · Views: 292
  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    561 bytes · Views: 302
  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    497 bytes · Views: 305
  • #20
You are making good progress. So what is the difference between the two series that you have obtained and the expansion of ##e^x##?
 
  • #21
Just x and x^2, respectively, which are not dependent on n. However, what happens when I do the variable changes and calculate the sums? For k = n-1 we get k = 0 as the lower sum and k = inf. as the upper sum, while we get q = -1 as the lower and q = inf as the upper for the second expression?
 
  • #22
Kqwert said:
Just x and x^2, respectively, which are not dependent on n. However, what happens when I do the variable changes and calculate the sums? For k = n-1 we get k = 0 as the lower sum and k = inf. as the upper sum, while we get q = -1 as the lower and q = inf as the upper for the second expression?
Yes, this is indeed the next thing you must check. For the k sum, you are already fine since the exponential series expansion is a sum from zero. For the q sum, what is ##(n-1)/(n-1)!## when ##n = 1##? Does that term contribute?
 
  • #23
Orodruin said:
Yes, this is indeed the next thing you must check. For the k sum, you are already fine since the exponential series expansion is a sum from zero. For the q sum, what is ##(n-1)/(n-1)!## when ##n = 1##? Does that term contribute?
It´s just zero. But, the way I have done it. I´m left with

gif.gif


WolframAlpha gave me x^2*e^x, but why..? I know that we must get q = 0, which results in x^2*e^x, but doesn't the q = -1 term contribute?
 

Attachments

  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    785 bytes · Views: 283
  • #24
You have to treat that term separately. Before cancelling (n-1)/(n-1)! to 1/(n-2)!, note that the n = 1 term reads 0/0!
 
  • #25
Orodruin said:
You have to treat that term separately. Before cancelling (n-1)/(n-1)! to 1/(n-2)!, note that the n = 1 term reads 0/0!
But why does that matter when the expression has been re-written? isn't is possible to solve it from the re-written series?
 
  • #26
Because the rewriting is not correct for ##n = 1##.
 
  • #27
Orodruin said:
Because the rewriting is not correct for ##n = 1##.
Not sure If I understand what you mean?
 
  • #28
For ##n = 1##, the term reads ##0/0!## but with the "cancellation" you did, it would be ##-1/(-1)!##, which you would need to interpret in terms of the Gamma function ##\Gamma(x)## in the limit ##x \to 0##, where ##\Gamma(x) \to \infty##. It is much easier to just remove that term from the beginning since 0! = 1 and therefore 0/0! = 0/1 = 0.
 
  • #29
Orodruin said:
For ##n = 1##, the term reads ##0/0!## but with the "cancellation" you did, it would be ##-1/(-1)!##, which you would need to interpret in terms of the Gamma function ##\Gamma(x)## in the limit ##x \to 0##, where ##\Gamma(x) \to \infty##. It is much easier to just remove that term from the beginning since 0! = 1 and therefore 0/0! = 0/1 = 0.
Ok thanks, but how does that relate to the "q-series" I´ve found which starts at q = -1? Wrong way of doing it?
 
  • #30
Kqwert said:
Ok thanks, but how does that relate to the "q-series" I´ve found which starts at q = -1? Wrong way of doing it?
You only found that particular series by making the cancellation. Alternatively you can do the replacement before cancellation, you will then get ##(q+1)/(q+1)!## and you can note that the ##q = -1## term is zero because ##q+1 = 0## so you can remove it. After that the cancellation is fine for all terms.
 
  • #31
Thank you, but what cancellation? Re-writing (n-1)/(n-1)! to 1/(n-2)! ? Not sure if I understand exactly what happens and why.
 
  • #32
Kqwert said:
Thank you, but what cancellation? Re-writing (n-1)/(n-1)! to 1/(n-2)! ? Not sure if I understand exactly what happens and why.
Yes, that cancellation. Because, as I said in #24, for ##n = 1##, that term reads ##0/0!## and the terms you would cancel are 0 and 0, which you cannot do. You have to look at that term separately and realize that it is actually zero so that it gives no contribution.
 
  • #33
Orodruin said:
Yes, that cancellation. Because, as I said in #24, for ##n = 1##, that term reads ##0/0!## and the terms you would cancel are 0 and 0, which you cannot do. You have to look at that term separately and realize that it is actually zero so that it gives no contribution.
I understand that, but I don't understand the order of things. When we start from
gif.gif


Should we first say that

gif.gif


and then do the change of variables? I am becoming a bit confused re. the best way of solving this.
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    853 bytes · Views: 276
  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    867 bytes · Views: 309
  • gif.gif
    gif.gif
    1.7 KB · Views: 313
  • #34
What you had from the beginning was
$$
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(n-1)x^n}{(n-1)!},
$$
not the sum from ##n = 0##. It does not matter if you change variables first or if you do the cancellation first. The only thing you must do is to remove the term ##n = 1## (or equivalently ##q = -1##) before you do the cancellation because that step is not valid for that term.
 
  • #35
And by removing the n = 1 term we end up starting at n = 2, right?
 
Back
Top