Where can i find the proof to this result?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sutupidmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proposition that for positive integers n and r, there exist constants a_1, a_2, ..., a_{r+1} such that the sum of the r-th powers of the first n integers equals a polynomial in n. One participant argues the proposition is false due to divisibility issues, citing specific examples where the sums are not divisible by n. Another counters that the coefficients a_i can be real numbers, which allows for the proposition to hold trivially by setting most coefficients to zero. The conversation also touches on the potential use of linear differential equations for proving the proposition, though clarity on this connection is lacking. The discussion highlights the need for precise definitions regarding the coefficients involved.
sutupidmath
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
4
If n and r are positve integers, then there are constants

a_1,a_2,a_3,...,a_{r+1}

such that:

1^r+2^r+3^r+...+n^r= a_1n+a_2n^2+a_3n^3+...+a_{r+1}n^{r+1}


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 1^3 + 2^3 is not divisible by 2, neither is 1^3 + \ldots + 6^3 divisible by 6.

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

1^r + \ldots + n^r \leq (n+1)n^r \leq n^{r+2}, and every number lower than n^{r+2} 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 1^3 + 2^3 is not divisible by 2, neither is 1^3 + \ldots + 6^3 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 a_i, i \in N 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 a_i are real numbers, the proposition is trivial. Let a_2 = \cdots = a_{r + 1} = 0 and let a_1 = \left( 1^r + \cdots + n^r \right) / n, and the proposition holds.
 
Bernouilli polynomials
 
Moo Of Doom said:
If the a_i are real numbers, the proposition is trivial. Let a_2 = \cdots = a_{r + 1} = 0 and let a_1 = \left( 1^r + \cdots + n^r \right) / n, 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
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top