Where can i find the proof to this result?

  • Thread starter sutupidmath
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, the proposition states that for any positive integers n and r, there exist constants a_1, a_2, ..., a_{r+1} such that the sum of the first n positive integer r-th powers is equal to the sum of the terms a_1n, a_2n^2, ..., a_{r+1}n^{r+1}. However, this proposition is false if the coefficients a_i are required to be integers. It can be proven using the theory of linear differential equations, but it is also trivial if the
  • #1
sutupidmath
1,630
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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?
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
Bernouilli polynomials
 
  • #6
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
 

FAQ: Where can i find the proof to this result?

Where can I find the proof to this result?

The proof to a result can typically be found in the corresponding research paper or academic publication. It may also be available on the author's website or in a mathematics database like MathSciNet. If you are unable to find the proof, you can also reach out to the author for clarification or further resources.

Is there a specific source or reference for this proof?

Yes, there should be a specific source or reference for the proof. This could be a textbook, research paper, or lecture notes. It is important to properly cite the source when using the proof in your own work.

Can I access the proof online?

It depends on the source of the proof. Some sources may be available online, while others may require access through a university or library subscription. If the proof is not available online, you may be able to request a copy through interlibrary loan.

How can I verify the validity of the proof?

If you are a mathematician or familiar with the subject, you can read through the proof and check for any logical errors or gaps. If you are not an expert in the field, you can also consult with other mathematicians or experts for their opinion on the validity of the proof.

Are there alternative proofs to this result?

It is possible that there may be alternative proofs to a result, especially in mathematics where there can be multiple ways to approach a problem. If you are interested in exploring alternative proofs, you can search for other publications or ask experts in the field for their insights.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top