OK I managed to prove a special case (is it right ?)

  • MHB
  • Thread starter sarrah1
  • Start date
In summary: AllIn summary, All and Sarrah had a conversation about Sarrah's proof of a special case where $a=b=c=1$ in a summation equation. Sarrah used Laplace transforms to simplify the summation, but All suggested that there may be other approaches to prove this special case. They also discussed finding the condition for the constants $a,b,c$ in order for the summation to converge to zero at infinity, and All suggested using Vandermonde convolution for combinations. Sarrah also mentioned needing help with finding an expression for (4) when the arguments in ${L}_{m}$ and ${L}_{n}$ are $at$ and $b(x-t)$ respectively. All suggested looking into the literature on generalized
  • #1
sarrah1
66
0
Hi All

remember the summation

$\sum_{k=0}^{m}{m \choose k}{a}^{k} \sum_{j=0}^{n} {n \choose j} \frac{{b}^{n-j}{c}^{j}}{(k+j)!}$ ....... (1)

I showed that the special case , that is when $a=b=c=1$ becomes

$\sum_{j=0}^{m+n}{m+n \choose j}\frac{1}{j!}$ ..........(2)

to prove it, I considered

$\sum_{k=0}^{m}{m \choose k}\sum_{j=0}^{n} {n \choose j} \frac{1}{(k+j)!}{x}^{k+j}$ ...(3)
and substitute at the end $x=1$.

Using Laplace transform it becomes

$ s \left(\sum_{k=0}^{m}{m \choose k}\frac{1}{{s}^{k+1}}\right)\left(\sum_{j=0}^{n}{m \choose j}\frac{1}{{s}^{k+1}}\right)$

the inside of the 2 brackets are Laplace transform of Laguerre polynomials so I did a convolution to obtain inverse Laplace

$\frac{d}{dx}\int_{0}^{x} \,{L}_{m}(t) {L}_{n}(x-t) dt $ ...... (4)

which gives an associate Laguerre polynomial and after some algebraic operations operations I arrived at (2). Note that Laguerre in (2) is divergent $ n\implies\infty$ I have in my case $m=n$. But (1) is convergent for say $a=b=c=1/2$. So I need to redo the proof in the presence of the constants, unless from (1) using Vandermonde convolution for combinations or else I get (2) directly without this hectic process. The idea is that I need to find the condition on the constants $a,b,c$ for (1) to become convergent at infinity to zero. I can do it if someone helps in finding (4) when the argument in ${L}_{m}$ is $at$ and in ${L}_{n}$ is $b(x-t)$ , i.e.

$\int_{0}^{x} \,{L}_{m}(at) {L}_{n}(b(x-t)) dt $ ...

the book by Oldham, Myland and Spanier gives it for $a=b=1$ whereas Gradshtein and Ryzhik book also gives it for $a=b$, I need the case when $ a\ne b$

grateful
Sarrah
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Sarrah,

Thank you for sharing your findings and your question. Your proof of the special case where $a=b=c=1$ is very interesting and I can see how Laplace transforms were used to simplify the summation. However, I do think that there are other approaches that can be used to prove this special case without involving Laplace transforms.

In terms of finding the condition for the constants $a,b,c$ in order for (1) to converge to zero at infinity, I think that using Vandermonde convolution for combinations can be a useful approach. It would be helpful to see if you can find a general expression for (1) in terms of the constants $a,b,c$ and then use Vandermonde convolution to simplify it.

As for finding (4) when the arguments in ${L}_{m}$ and ${L}_{n}$ are $at$ and $b(x-t)$ respectively, I suggest looking into the literature on generalized Laguerre polynomials. From my understanding, these polynomials can handle different arguments in a similar way to how ${L}_{m}(t) {L}_{n}(x-t)$ handles arguments of $t$ and $x-t$. I hope this helps and I am looking forward to seeing how your proof progresses.
 

FAQ: OK I managed to prove a special case (is it right ?)

Is proving a special case sufficient to prove a general case?

No, proving a special case does not necessarily prove the general case. A special case may have unique characteristics that do not apply to the general case.

How can I determine if my special case is representative of the general case?

The best way to determine if a special case is representative of the general case is to compare the characteristics of both cases. If they share similar properties and behaviors, then the special case may be a good indication of the general case.

Are there any limitations to proving a special case?

Yes, proving a special case may have limitations depending on the specific problem or hypothesis being tested. It is important to carefully consider the scope and applicability of the special case before drawing conclusions about the general case.

Can proving a special case lead to false conclusions?

Yes, proving a special case may lead to false conclusions if the case is not representative of the general case or if there are other factors that have not been considered. It is important to thoroughly analyze and validate the results before drawing conclusions.

What are the benefits of proving a special case?

Proving a special case can provide valuable insights and understanding that can contribute to the overall understanding of a problem or hypothesis. It can also serve as a starting point for further research and investigation into the general case.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
583
Replies
8
Views
684
Replies
12
Views
3K
Back
Top