Proving the identity $sum_{k=1}^n {k^3} = big(sum_{k=1}^n kbig)^2$ without induction
$begingroup$
I recently proved that
$$sum_{k=1}^n k^3 = left(sum_{k=1}^n k right)^2$$
using mathematical induction. I'm interested if there's an intuitive explanation, or even a combinatorial interpretation of this property. I would also like to see any other proofs.
sequences-and-series algebra-precalculus summation visualization
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I recently proved that
$$sum_{k=1}^n k^3 = left(sum_{k=1}^n k right)^2$$
using mathematical induction. I'm interested if there's an intuitive explanation, or even a combinatorial interpretation of this property. I would also like to see any other proofs.
sequences-and-series algebra-precalculus summation visualization
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/61798/…
$endgroup$
– Arjang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:22
$begingroup$
Look at this takayaiwamoto.com/Sums_and_Series/sumcube_1.html
$endgroup$
– pritam
Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
$begingroup$
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/120674 for remarks about proofs "not using induction".
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:13
$begingroup$
I merged the three existing posts which covered exactly this question, as each post had different interesting answers which should not be lost. I also deleted redundant comments, and comments about closing posts as duplicates. This fourth question is not considered a duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Jul 2 '12 at 11:30
2
$begingroup$
Since this question is asked frequently, it has been added to the list of Generalizations of Common questions. It has been kept seperate from the version which does use induction.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Aug 30 '12 at 0:23
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I recently proved that
$$sum_{k=1}^n k^3 = left(sum_{k=1}^n k right)^2$$
using mathematical induction. I'm interested if there's an intuitive explanation, or even a combinatorial interpretation of this property. I would also like to see any other proofs.
sequences-and-series algebra-precalculus summation visualization
$endgroup$
I recently proved that
$$sum_{k=1}^n k^3 = left(sum_{k=1}^n k right)^2$$
using mathematical induction. I'm interested if there's an intuitive explanation, or even a combinatorial interpretation of this property. I would also like to see any other proofs.
sequences-and-series algebra-precalculus summation visualization
sequences-and-series algebra-precalculus summation visualization
edited Oct 20 '17 at 22:37
Jack
27.5k1782202
27.5k1782202
asked Sep 2 '11 at 21:06
F MF M
3,09152341
3,09152341
6
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/61798/…
$endgroup$
– Arjang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:22
$begingroup$
Look at this takayaiwamoto.com/Sums_and_Series/sumcube_1.html
$endgroup$
– pritam
Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
$begingroup$
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/120674 for remarks about proofs "not using induction".
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:13
$begingroup$
I merged the three existing posts which covered exactly this question, as each post had different interesting answers which should not be lost. I also deleted redundant comments, and comments about closing posts as duplicates. This fourth question is not considered a duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Jul 2 '12 at 11:30
2
$begingroup$
Since this question is asked frequently, it has been added to the list of Generalizations of Common questions. It has been kept seperate from the version which does use induction.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Aug 30 '12 at 0:23
|
show 2 more comments
6
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/61798/…
$endgroup$
– Arjang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:22
$begingroup$
Look at this takayaiwamoto.com/Sums_and_Series/sumcube_1.html
$endgroup$
– pritam
Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
$begingroup$
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/120674 for remarks about proofs "not using induction".
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:13
$begingroup$
I merged the three existing posts which covered exactly this question, as each post had different interesting answers which should not be lost. I also deleted redundant comments, and comments about closing posts as duplicates. This fourth question is not considered a duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Jul 2 '12 at 11:30
2
$begingroup$
Since this question is asked frequently, it has been added to the list of Generalizations of Common questions. It has been kept seperate from the version which does use induction.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Aug 30 '12 at 0:23
6
6
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/61798/…
$endgroup$
– Arjang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:22
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/61798/…
$endgroup$
– Arjang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:22
$begingroup$
Look at this takayaiwamoto.com/Sums_and_Series/sumcube_1.html
$endgroup$
– pritam
Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
$begingroup$
Look at this takayaiwamoto.com/Sums_and_Series/sumcube_1.html
$endgroup$
– pritam
Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
$begingroup$
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/120674 for remarks about proofs "not using induction".
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:13
$begingroup$
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/120674 for remarks about proofs "not using induction".
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:13
$begingroup$
I merged the three existing posts which covered exactly this question, as each post had different interesting answers which should not be lost. I also deleted redundant comments, and comments about closing posts as duplicates. This fourth question is not considered a duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Jul 2 '12 at 11:30
$begingroup$
I merged the three existing posts which covered exactly this question, as each post had different interesting answers which should not be lost. I also deleted redundant comments, and comments about closing posts as duplicates. This fourth question is not considered a duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Jul 2 '12 at 11:30
2
2
$begingroup$
Since this question is asked frequently, it has been added to the list of Generalizations of Common questions. It has been kept seperate from the version which does use induction.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Aug 30 '12 at 0:23
$begingroup$
Since this question is asked frequently, it has been added to the list of Generalizations of Common questions. It has been kept seperate from the version which does use induction.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Aug 30 '12 at 0:23
|
show 2 more comments
23 Answers
23
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Stare at the following image, taken from this MO answer, long enough:
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
15
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
13
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
3
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
4
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I don't know if this is intuitive, but it is graphic.
On the outer edge of each $(k{+}1){times}k$ block there are $k$ pairs of products each of which total to $k^2$. Thus, the outer edge sums to $k^3$, and the sum of the whole array is therefore $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3$.
The array is the matrix product
$$
left[begin{array}{r}0\1\2\vdots\nend{array}right]bulletleft[begin{array}{rrrrr}1&2&3&cdots&nend{array}right]
$$
Therefore, the sum of the elements of the array is $sumlimits_{k=0}^nk;sumlimits_{k=1}^nk=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$.
Therefore, $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you get the intuition explanation from the following two pictures?[EDIT: the following is essentially the same as Mariano's answer. He didn't mentioned the first picture though.]
The images are from Brian R Sears.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I believe this illustration is due to Anders Kaseorg:
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There's this nice picture from the Wikipedia entry on the squared triangular number:
The left side shows that $1 + 2 + 3$ forms a triangle and so that squaring it produces a larger triangle made up of $1+2+3$ copies of the original triangle. The right side has $1(1^2) + 2(2^2) + 3(3^2) = 1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3$. The coloring shows why the two sides are equal.
There are several other references for combinatorial proofs and geometric arguments on the Wikipedia page.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another version of this "proof without words". This is the case $n=4$.
There are 1 $1 times 1$, 2 $2 times 2$, 3 $3 times 3$, ... squares, for a total area of $1^3 + 2^3 + ldots + n^3$. For even $k$, two of the $k times k$ squares overlap in a $k/2 times k/2$ square, but this
just balances out a $k/2 times k/2$ square that is left out, so the total is the area of
a square of side $1 + 2 + ldots + n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Each colored area is $k^3$ as a difference of two areas: $S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2$.
The detailed proof which comes with the drawing is the following.
For any positive integer $k$, we define:
$$S_i = sum_{j=1}^{i} j$$
We first notice:
$$S_i^2 = S_i^2 - S_0^2= sum_{k=1}^{i} left(S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2right)$$
The expected result finally comes from:
$$S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2 = k left(k+2 S_{k-1}right) = kleft(k+kleft(k-1right)right)=k^3$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The formula is due to Nicomachus of Gerasa. There is a nice discussion of ways to prove it at this n-category cafe post, including a bijective proof and some visual / "geometric" proofs.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Several visual proofs of this indentity are collected in the book
Roger B. Nelsen: Proofs without Words
starting from p.84.
Although several of these proofs can still be considered inductive, I thought it might be interesting to mention them.
Original sources are given on p. 147:
- 84 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 199. jstor
- 85 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 50, no. 2 (March 1977), p. 74. jstor
- 86 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1985), p. 11. jstor
- 87 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1989), p. 259. jstor
- 87 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 200. jstor
- 88 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3 (June 1990), p. 178. jstor
- 89 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 5 (Dec. 1989), p. 323. jstor
- 90 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 65, no. 3 (June 1992), p. 185. jstor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The sum of a degree $n$ polynomial $f(n)$ will be a degree $n+1$ polynomial $S(n)$ for $n geq 0$ and both polynomials can be extended (maintaining the relation $S(n)-S(n-1) = f(n)$) to negative $n$.
To verify that the formula for $Sigma k^3$ is correct one need only test it for any 5 distinct values of $n$, but the structure of the answer can be predicted algebraically using the continuation to negative $n$.
If $S(n) = (1^3 + 2^3 + dots n^3)$ is the polynomial that satisfies $S(n)-S(n-1) = n^3$ and $S(1)=1$, then one can calculate from that equation that $S(0)=S(-1)=0$ and $S(-n-1)=S(n)$ for all negative $n$, so that $S$ is symmetric around $-1/2$. The vanishing at 0 and -1 implies that $S(t)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $t(t+1)$. The symmetry implies that $S(t)$ is a function (necessarily a polynomial) of $t(t+1)$.
$S(t)$ being of degree 4, this means $S(n) = a (n)(n+1) + b((n^2 +n)^2$ for constants $a$ and $b$. Summation being analogous to integration (and equal to it in a suitable limit), they have to agree on highest degree terms. Here it forces $b$ to be $1/4$ to match $int x^3 = x^4/4$. Computing the sum at a single point such as $n=1$ determines $a$, which is zero.
Similar reasoning shows that $S_k(n)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $n(n+1)$ for all $k$. For odd $k$, $S_k(n)$ is a polynomial in $n(n+1)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You know, $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$. Differentiate both sides once, $sum_1^n kx^{k-1}=frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1}$. Now taking $lim_{xto1}$ both sides and then squaring the result will give you the expression on the RHS. You can further differentiate $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$ until you get $k^3$ inside the expression, take limit again you will get the same result as of $(lim_{xto1}frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1})^2$. You can also prove it using telescopic series.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
1
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a direct algebraic proof. $$sum_{k=1}^n(k^3-k^2)=2sum_{k=1}^nkcdotfrac{k(k-1)}2=2sum_{k=1}^nksum_{l=1}^{k-1}l=2sum_{1leqslant l<kleqslant n}kl=left(sum_{k=1}^nkright)^2-sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $$A=sum_1^n k^3=frac{1}{4}n^4+frac{1}{2}n^3+frac{1}{4}n^2$$ and $$B=sum_1^n k=frac{1}{2}n^2+frac{1}{2}n$$ $A-B^2=0$. :)
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$f(n)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+n^3$
$f(n-1)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+(n-1)^3$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=n^3$
if $f(n)= (1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2$ then
$$f(n)-f(n-1)=(1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2-(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))^2$$
using $a^2-b^2=(a+b)(a-b)$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=$
$=[1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+cdots+(n-1)+(n-1)+n][1-1+2-2+3-3+4-4+cdots+(n-1)-(n-1)+n]=$
$=[2(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))+n]n=(2frac{n(n-1)}{2}+n)n=(n(n-1)+n)n=n^3$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulhaber%27s_formula#Faulhaber_polynomials
If $p$ is odd, then $1^p+2^p+3^p+cdots+n^p$ is a polynomial function of $a=1+2+3+cdots+n$. If $p=3$, then then the sum is $a^2$; if $p=5$ then it's $(4a^3-a^2)/3$, and so on.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Chance would have it that I stumbled* upon this article today:
http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2010/03/04/nichomachuss-theorem/
It seems to answer your question.
(* That is, @AlgebraFact on Twitter posted a link)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The square in the identity is the area of the triangle below, while the cubes are the area's of the trapezoidal layers, with heights $k = 1, 2, cdots, n$
The trapezoids have area $k^3$ because their height equals $k$ and the $text{width}_{text{atHalfHeight}}$ consists of $k$ diagonals with width $k$:
The total of the triangle is its squared height $(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2$, because this triangle can be turned into a square:
Therefore:
$(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2 = sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ , $blacksquare$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One way to show that
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = bigg(sum_{i=1}^n i bigg)^2$$
is to add up the entries in the multiplication tables, but first we need to show that
$$1+2+3+dots+n+dots+3+2+1 = n^2$$
For this, see the image below (n=7)
$$7^2=color{green}{1+2+3+4+5+6+7}color{red}{+6+5+4+3+2+1}$$
Next, consider the standard multiplication table that we are all familiar with.The graphic shows the table up to the 9s.
We can add up the entries in any order that we wish.
One way would be to add up a series of Ls (the 6th L ($L_6$) is highlighted in yellow).
$$begin{align}
L_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+30+24+18+12+6\
&=6(1+2+3+4+5+6+5+4+3+2+1)\
&=6(6^2)\
&=6^3
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries in the table becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n i^3$$
Alternatively, we could just add up each row. The 6th row (R_6) would be
$$begin{align}
R_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+42+48+54\
&= 6(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)\
&= 6sum_{i=1}^9 i
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n R_i = sum_{i=1}^n bigg(isum_{j=1}^n jbigg)=bigg(sum_{j=1}^n jbigg)bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
Thus we have
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n R_i=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is about the same proof as here, the presentation is a bit different though. This is another way to make $k^3$ appear than what was shown here, here and here.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a simple bijective proof of a different sort:
Consider a staircase with $n$ steps, built out of $sum_{k=1}^n k$ blocks. In other words, take the set ${(i,j) in mathbb{Z}timesmathbb{Z}: i + j leq n, i > 0, j > 0}$.
Then $left(sum_{k=1}^n kright)^2$ is the number of ordered pairs $(B_1,B_2)$ of blocks.
And $sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ is the number of ordered $4$-tuples $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $k in {1,ldots,n}$, and $b_1$ is along the $k$-th diagonal $b_1 in {(k+1-j,j): j in {1,ldots,k}}$, and $b_2$ is along the bottom $b_2 in {(j,1): j in {1,ldots, k}}$ and $b_3$ is along the left side $b_3 in {(1,j): j in {1, ldots, k}}$.
The bijection:
Given an ordered tuple $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, let $A_1 = b_1$ and let $A_2$ given by $b_2$ and $b_3$ as its $x$ and $y$ coordinates, so if $b_2 = (i,1)$ and $b_3 = (1,j)$ then $A_2 = (i,j)$.
Case 1: $A_2$ is on or below the $k$-th diagonal. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_1, A_2)$.
Case 2: $A_2$ is above the $k$-the diagonal. Then let $A_2'$ be the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal of $A_2$. That is, if $A_2 = (i,j)$ then $A_2' = (k+1-j,k+1-i)$. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_2', A_1)$.
The inverse:
To get the inverse, take whichever of $B_1$ and $B_2$ is on a higher diagonal (i.e. has greater sum of its coordinates), taking $B_1$ in case of ties, and let that be $b_1$ and let $k$ be the sum of the coordinates of $b_1$.
Case 1: If $B_1$ is used: Take $B_2$ and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_2$.
Case 2: If $B_2$ is used: Take $B_1'$ (i.e. the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal, as above) and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_1'$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After many years I still think the best way to solve this kind of problem in a natural and systematic way is to view it as a recurrence relation with constants coefficients, in this case, $x_n = x_{n-1}+n^3$. The way I learnt to do so was by using characteristic polynomial but you may prefer some other method...
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For every $kinmathbb{N}$
$$(k+1)^4=k^4+4k^3++6k^2+4k+1$$
therefore
$$sum_{k=1}^n(k+1)^4=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+4sum_{k=1}^nk+sum_{k=1}^n1$$
which is equivalent to
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^4+(n+1)^4-1=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+2n(n+1)+n$$
After simplifications we obtain
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=(n+1)^4-1-2n(n+1)-n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
Using
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^2=frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}hspace{0.2cm}text{and}hspace{0.2cm}sum_{k=1}^nk=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$
we get
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2\=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-n(n+1)(2n+1)\=n^4+2n^3+n^2=n^2(n+1)^2$$
Finally
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^3=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}=Big(frac{n(n+1)}{2}Big)^2=Big(sum_{k=1}^nkBig)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We begin by writing $k^3$ in a more clever fashion: $k^3 = k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 - 2k$ :
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 -2k$$
Distributing the summation we obtain: $$ sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice, $$k(k-1)(k-2) = frac {k!}{(k-3)!}$$
Now we have
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice that we have nearly obtained the binomial expansion of K choose 3, all we need to do is divide by 3! So we offset this by also taking the product of 3!
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!3!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^nbinom{k}{3} = 3!binom{n+1}{4}$$
We have now obtained
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = 3!binom{n+1}{4} + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Focusing solely on the right-hand side we have
$$6biggl(frac {(n+1)!}{(n-3)!4!}biggr) + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Assuming we already know the sum of the sequence of integers and squared integers (the 2 sums we have left) we have
$$ frac {(n+1)(n)(n-1)(n-2)}{4} + 3frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} - 2frac {n(n+1)}{2}$$
Generating common denominators and with a bit of algebra we now have
$$ frac {n^4-2n^3-n^2+2n+4n^3+6n^2+2n-4n^2-4n}{4}$$
Combining like-terms we have reached our solution:
$$ frac {n^4+2n^3+n^2}{4} = biggl(sum_{k=0}^n kbiggr)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61482%2fproving-the-identity-sum-k-1n-k3-big-sum-k-1n-k-big2-without-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
23 Answers
23
active
oldest
votes
23 Answers
23
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Stare at the following image, taken from this MO answer, long enough:
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
15
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
13
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
3
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
4
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Stare at the following image, taken from this MO answer, long enough:
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
15
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
13
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
3
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
4
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Stare at the following image, taken from this MO answer, long enough:
$endgroup$
Stare at the following image, taken from this MO answer, long enough:
edited Sep 20 '17 at 3:43
Parcly Taxel
44.6k1376109
44.6k1376109
answered Sep 2 '11 at 21:16
Mariano Suárez-ÁlvarezMariano Suárez-Álvarez
112k7157288
112k7157288
4
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
15
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
13
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
3
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
4
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
|
show 2 more comments
4
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
15
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
13
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
3
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
4
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
4
4
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
$begingroup$
original link: users.tru.eastlink.ca/~brsears/math/oldprob.htm#s32
$endgroup$
– Foo Bah
Sep 3 '11 at 3:36
15
15
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
$begingroup$
The fact that there are $k$ blocks (or $frac{1}{2}+k{-}1+frac{1}{2}$ blocks) of $ktimes k$ size is based on the fact that $sumlimits_{j=1}^{k-1}=k(k{-}1)/2$. That is, $(k{-}1)/2$ blocks on top $(k{-}1)/2$ on the left and $1$ block at the corner (totaling to $k$). Perhaps I am being picky or slow, but I don't see this as obvious from the image. Beyond that, it is a nice proof-without-words.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 3 '11 at 4:13
13
13
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
$begingroup$
I don’t think this is a proof free from induction.
$endgroup$
– k.stm
Mar 27 '14 at 12:58
3
3
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
$begingroup$
This only proves the assertion for $n=5$. If someone is to accept its validity for general $n$, then it is clearly not induction-free.
$endgroup$
– uniquesolution
Oct 11 '15 at 0:39
4
4
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
$begingroup$
That only shows you haven't stared at the image long enough...
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Oct 11 '15 at 2:23
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I don't know if this is intuitive, but it is graphic.
On the outer edge of each $(k{+}1){times}k$ block there are $k$ pairs of products each of which total to $k^2$. Thus, the outer edge sums to $k^3$, and the sum of the whole array is therefore $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3$.
The array is the matrix product
$$
left[begin{array}{r}0\1\2\vdots\nend{array}right]bulletleft[begin{array}{rrrrr}1&2&3&cdots&nend{array}right]
$$
Therefore, the sum of the elements of the array is $sumlimits_{k=0}^nk;sumlimits_{k=1}^nk=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$.
Therefore, $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know if this is intuitive, but it is graphic.
On the outer edge of each $(k{+}1){times}k$ block there are $k$ pairs of products each of which total to $k^2$. Thus, the outer edge sums to $k^3$, and the sum of the whole array is therefore $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3$.
The array is the matrix product
$$
left[begin{array}{r}0\1\2\vdots\nend{array}right]bulletleft[begin{array}{rrrrr}1&2&3&cdots&nend{array}right]
$$
Therefore, the sum of the elements of the array is $sumlimits_{k=0}^nk;sumlimits_{k=1}^nk=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$.
Therefore, $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know if this is intuitive, but it is graphic.
On the outer edge of each $(k{+}1){times}k$ block there are $k$ pairs of products each of which total to $k^2$. Thus, the outer edge sums to $k^3$, and the sum of the whole array is therefore $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3$.
The array is the matrix product
$$
left[begin{array}{r}0\1\2\vdots\nend{array}right]bulletleft[begin{array}{rrrrr}1&2&3&cdots&nend{array}right]
$$
Therefore, the sum of the elements of the array is $sumlimits_{k=0}^nk;sumlimits_{k=1}^nk=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$.
Therefore, $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$
$endgroup$
I don't know if this is intuitive, but it is graphic.
On the outer edge of each $(k{+}1){times}k$ block there are $k$ pairs of products each of which total to $k^2$. Thus, the outer edge sums to $k^3$, and the sum of the whole array is therefore $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3$.
The array is the matrix product
$$
left[begin{array}{r}0\1\2\vdots\nend{array}right]bulletleft[begin{array}{rrrrr}1&2&3&cdots&nend{array}right]
$$
Therefore, the sum of the elements of the array is $sumlimits_{k=0}^nk;sumlimits_{k=1}^nk=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$.
Therefore, $sumlimits_{k=1}^n k^3=left(sumlimits_{k=1}^nkright)^2$
edited Sep 2 '11 at 22:30
answered Sep 2 '11 at 21:55
robjohn♦robjohn
269k27311638
269k27311638
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
If we forget the first line of the matrix (which is zero and which is only used to make pairs with the diagonal coefficients), then I like the fact we can put this answer in parallel with the coloured rectangles above and below, and we get another partition of each colored area (each coefficient of the matrix gives a rectangle of a certain area), which explains why each L-shaped area is $k^3$.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:39
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
However, each L-shape coefficient has the same factor $k$, which means it proves "each L-shaped area is $k^3$" by the same proof that $2 times sum_{j=0}^k j = (0+k) + (1+k-1) + ... + (k-1+1) + (k+0) = (k+1) times k$, which makes it really close to the coloured rectangles above and below.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:49
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I hope you don't mind if I use both ideas in another answer.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 8:13
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
$begingroup$
I don't mind. I simply find it less aesthetic to need to use $sumlimits_{j=1}^k;j=k(k+1)/2$ or that $(k(k+1)/2)^2-(k(k-1)/2)^2=k^3$ in an intuitive proof.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you get the intuition explanation from the following two pictures?[EDIT: the following is essentially the same as Mariano's answer. He didn't mentioned the first picture though.]
The images are from Brian R Sears.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you get the intuition explanation from the following two pictures?[EDIT: the following is essentially the same as Mariano's answer. He didn't mentioned the first picture though.]
The images are from Brian R Sears.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you get the intuition explanation from the following two pictures?[EDIT: the following is essentially the same as Mariano's answer. He didn't mentioned the first picture though.]
The images are from Brian R Sears.
$endgroup$
Can you get the intuition explanation from the following two pictures?[EDIT: the following is essentially the same as Mariano's answer. He didn't mentioned the first picture though.]
The images are from Brian R Sears.
edited Sep 2 '11 at 23:27
community wiki
2 revs
Jack
1
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
1
1
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
$begingroup$
nice, but already posted (linked) by Mariano
$endgroup$
– leonbloy
Sep 2 '11 at 23:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I believe this illustration is due to Anders Kaseorg:
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I believe this illustration is due to Anders Kaseorg:
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I believe this illustration is due to Anders Kaseorg:
$endgroup$
I believe this illustration is due to Anders Kaseorg:
answered Apr 25 '13 at 2:17
community wiki
MJD
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There's this nice picture from the Wikipedia entry on the squared triangular number:
The left side shows that $1 + 2 + 3$ forms a triangle and so that squaring it produces a larger triangle made up of $1+2+3$ copies of the original triangle. The right side has $1(1^2) + 2(2^2) + 3(3^2) = 1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3$. The coloring shows why the two sides are equal.
There are several other references for combinatorial proofs and geometric arguments on the Wikipedia page.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There's this nice picture from the Wikipedia entry on the squared triangular number:
The left side shows that $1 + 2 + 3$ forms a triangle and so that squaring it produces a larger triangle made up of $1+2+3$ copies of the original triangle. The right side has $1(1^2) + 2(2^2) + 3(3^2) = 1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3$. The coloring shows why the two sides are equal.
There are several other references for combinatorial proofs and geometric arguments on the Wikipedia page.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There's this nice picture from the Wikipedia entry on the squared triangular number:
The left side shows that $1 + 2 + 3$ forms a triangle and so that squaring it produces a larger triangle made up of $1+2+3$ copies of the original triangle. The right side has $1(1^2) + 2(2^2) + 3(3^2) = 1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3$. The coloring shows why the two sides are equal.
There are several other references for combinatorial proofs and geometric arguments on the Wikipedia page.
$endgroup$
There's this nice picture from the Wikipedia entry on the squared triangular number:
The left side shows that $1 + 2 + 3$ forms a triangle and so that squaring it produces a larger triangle made up of $1+2+3$ copies of the original triangle. The right side has $1(1^2) + 2(2^2) + 3(3^2) = 1^3 + 2^3 + 3^3$. The coloring shows why the two sides are equal.
There are several other references for combinatorial proofs and geometric arguments on the Wikipedia page.
edited Sep 2 '11 at 22:15
answered Sep 2 '11 at 21:17
Mike SpiveyMike Spivey
42.7k8144234
42.7k8144234
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another version of this "proof without words". This is the case $n=4$.
There are 1 $1 times 1$, 2 $2 times 2$, 3 $3 times 3$, ... squares, for a total area of $1^3 + 2^3 + ldots + n^3$. For even $k$, two of the $k times k$ squares overlap in a $k/2 times k/2$ square, but this
just balances out a $k/2 times k/2$ square that is left out, so the total is the area of
a square of side $1 + 2 + ldots + n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another version of this "proof without words". This is the case $n=4$.
There are 1 $1 times 1$, 2 $2 times 2$, 3 $3 times 3$, ... squares, for a total area of $1^3 + 2^3 + ldots + n^3$. For even $k$, two of the $k times k$ squares overlap in a $k/2 times k/2$ square, but this
just balances out a $k/2 times k/2$ square that is left out, so the total is the area of
a square of side $1 + 2 + ldots + n$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's another version of this "proof without words". This is the case $n=4$.
There are 1 $1 times 1$, 2 $2 times 2$, 3 $3 times 3$, ... squares, for a total area of $1^3 + 2^3 + ldots + n^3$. For even $k$, two of the $k times k$ squares overlap in a $k/2 times k/2$ square, but this
just balances out a $k/2 times k/2$ square that is left out, so the total is the area of
a square of side $1 + 2 + ldots + n$.
$endgroup$
Here's another version of this "proof without words". This is the case $n=4$.
There are 1 $1 times 1$, 2 $2 times 2$, 3 $3 times 3$, ... squares, for a total area of $1^3 + 2^3 + ldots + n^3$. For even $k$, two of the $k times k$ squares overlap in a $k/2 times k/2$ square, but this
just balances out a $k/2 times k/2$ square that is left out, so the total is the area of
a square of side $1 + 2 + ldots + n$.
answered Sep 2 '11 at 22:34
Robert IsraelRobert Israel
328k23216469
328k23216469
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Each colored area is $k^3$ as a difference of two areas: $S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2$.
The detailed proof which comes with the drawing is the following.
For any positive integer $k$, we define:
$$S_i = sum_{j=1}^{i} j$$
We first notice:
$$S_i^2 = S_i^2 - S_0^2= sum_{k=1}^{i} left(S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2right)$$
The expected result finally comes from:
$$S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2 = k left(k+2 S_{k-1}right) = kleft(k+kleft(k-1right)right)=k^3$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Each colored area is $k^3$ as a difference of two areas: $S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2$.
The detailed proof which comes with the drawing is the following.
For any positive integer $k$, we define:
$$S_i = sum_{j=1}^{i} j$$
We first notice:
$$S_i^2 = S_i^2 - S_0^2= sum_{k=1}^{i} left(S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2right)$$
The expected result finally comes from:
$$S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2 = k left(k+2 S_{k-1}right) = kleft(k+kleft(k-1right)right)=k^3$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Each colored area is $k^3$ as a difference of two areas: $S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2$.
The detailed proof which comes with the drawing is the following.
For any positive integer $k$, we define:
$$S_i = sum_{j=1}^{i} j$$
We first notice:
$$S_i^2 = S_i^2 - S_0^2= sum_{k=1}^{i} left(S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2right)$$
The expected result finally comes from:
$$S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2 = k left(k+2 S_{k-1}right) = kleft(k+kleft(k-1right)right)=k^3$$
$endgroup$
Each colored area is $k^3$ as a difference of two areas: $S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2$.
The detailed proof which comes with the drawing is the following.
For any positive integer $k$, we define:
$$S_i = sum_{j=1}^{i} j$$
We first notice:
$$S_i^2 = S_i^2 - S_0^2= sum_{k=1}^{i} left(S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2right)$$
The expected result finally comes from:
$$S_k^2 - S_{k-1}^2 = k left(k+2 S_{k-1}right) = kleft(k+kleft(k-1right)right)=k^3$$
edited Sep 3 '11 at 8:07
answered Sep 3 '11 at 7:18
WokWok
1,5781323
1,5781323
1
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
1
1
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
So essentially, you are using the fact that $$left(sum_{j=1}^k;jright)^2-left(sum_{j=1}^{k-1};jright)^2=k^3$$ to justify the diagram which is supposed to prove that fact intuitively.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Sep 4 '11 at 1:09
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As you mentioned in another answer, this is where the diagram is the least intuitive. However, if you cannot picture $k^3$ on a 2D-plane, then you need another representation as a difference of areas.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 6:50
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
$begingroup$
As soon as you know $S_k = sum_{j=1}^k j = frac{k(k+1)}{2}$, I find it more intuitive to figure out each colored area is $k^3$ on this diagram than to figure it out by counting squares plus two rectangles when $k$ is even.
$endgroup$
– Wok
Sep 4 '11 at 7:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The formula is due to Nicomachus of Gerasa. There is a nice discussion of ways to prove it at this n-category cafe post, including a bijective proof and some visual / "geometric" proofs.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The formula is due to Nicomachus of Gerasa. There is a nice discussion of ways to prove it at this n-category cafe post, including a bijective proof and some visual / "geometric" proofs.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The formula is due to Nicomachus of Gerasa. There is a nice discussion of ways to prove it at this n-category cafe post, including a bijective proof and some visual / "geometric" proofs.
$endgroup$
The formula is due to Nicomachus of Gerasa. There is a nice discussion of ways to prove it at this n-category cafe post, including a bijective proof and some visual / "geometric" proofs.
answered Jan 22 '11 at 19:12
Qiaochu YuanQiaochu Yuan
281k32592938
281k32592938
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Several visual proofs of this indentity are collected in the book
Roger B. Nelsen: Proofs without Words
starting from p.84.
Although several of these proofs can still be considered inductive, I thought it might be interesting to mention them.
Original sources are given on p. 147:
- 84 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 199. jstor
- 85 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 50, no. 2 (March 1977), p. 74. jstor
- 86 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1985), p. 11. jstor
- 87 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1989), p. 259. jstor
- 87 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 200. jstor
- 88 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3 (June 1990), p. 178. jstor
- 89 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 5 (Dec. 1989), p. 323. jstor
- 90 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 65, no. 3 (June 1992), p. 185. jstor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Several visual proofs of this indentity are collected in the book
Roger B. Nelsen: Proofs without Words
starting from p.84.
Although several of these proofs can still be considered inductive, I thought it might be interesting to mention them.
Original sources are given on p. 147:
- 84 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 199. jstor
- 85 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 50, no. 2 (March 1977), p. 74. jstor
- 86 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1985), p. 11. jstor
- 87 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1989), p. 259. jstor
- 87 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 200. jstor
- 88 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3 (June 1990), p. 178. jstor
- 89 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 5 (Dec. 1989), p. 323. jstor
- 90 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 65, no. 3 (June 1992), p. 185. jstor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Several visual proofs of this indentity are collected in the book
Roger B. Nelsen: Proofs without Words
starting from p.84.
Although several of these proofs can still be considered inductive, I thought it might be interesting to mention them.
Original sources are given on p. 147:
- 84 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 199. jstor
- 85 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 50, no. 2 (March 1977), p. 74. jstor
- 86 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1985), p. 11. jstor
- 87 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1989), p. 259. jstor
- 87 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 200. jstor
- 88 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3 (June 1990), p. 178. jstor
- 89 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 5 (Dec. 1989), p. 323. jstor
- 90 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 65, no. 3 (June 1992), p. 185. jstor
$endgroup$
Several visual proofs of this indentity are collected in the book
Roger B. Nelsen: Proofs without Words
starting from p.84.
Although several of these proofs can still be considered inductive, I thought it might be interesting to mention them.
Original sources are given on p. 147:
- 84 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 199. jstor
- 85 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 50, no. 2 (March 1977), p. 74. jstor
- 86 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 58, no. 1 (Jan. 1985), p. 11. jstor
- 87 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1989), p. 259. jstor
- 87 Mathematical Gazette, vol. 49, no. 368 (May 1965), p. 200. jstor
- 88 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 63, no. 3 (June 1990), p. 178. jstor
- 89 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 62, no. 5 (Dec. 1989), p. 323. jstor
- 90 Mathematics Magazine, vol. 65, no. 3 (June 1992), p. 185. jstor
answered Jun 27 '12 at 11:00
community wiki
Martin Sleziak
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
$begingroup$
Great collections. Thanks
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 11:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The sum of a degree $n$ polynomial $f(n)$ will be a degree $n+1$ polynomial $S(n)$ for $n geq 0$ and both polynomials can be extended (maintaining the relation $S(n)-S(n-1) = f(n)$) to negative $n$.
To verify that the formula for $Sigma k^3$ is correct one need only test it for any 5 distinct values of $n$, but the structure of the answer can be predicted algebraically using the continuation to negative $n$.
If $S(n) = (1^3 + 2^3 + dots n^3)$ is the polynomial that satisfies $S(n)-S(n-1) = n^3$ and $S(1)=1$, then one can calculate from that equation that $S(0)=S(-1)=0$ and $S(-n-1)=S(n)$ for all negative $n$, so that $S$ is symmetric around $-1/2$. The vanishing at 0 and -1 implies that $S(t)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $t(t+1)$. The symmetry implies that $S(t)$ is a function (necessarily a polynomial) of $t(t+1)$.
$S(t)$ being of degree 4, this means $S(n) = a (n)(n+1) + b((n^2 +n)^2$ for constants $a$ and $b$. Summation being analogous to integration (and equal to it in a suitable limit), they have to agree on highest degree terms. Here it forces $b$ to be $1/4$ to match $int x^3 = x^4/4$. Computing the sum at a single point such as $n=1$ determines $a$, which is zero.
Similar reasoning shows that $S_k(n)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $n(n+1)$ for all $k$. For odd $k$, $S_k(n)$ is a polynomial in $n(n+1)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The sum of a degree $n$ polynomial $f(n)$ will be a degree $n+1$ polynomial $S(n)$ for $n geq 0$ and both polynomials can be extended (maintaining the relation $S(n)-S(n-1) = f(n)$) to negative $n$.
To verify that the formula for $Sigma k^3$ is correct one need only test it for any 5 distinct values of $n$, but the structure of the answer can be predicted algebraically using the continuation to negative $n$.
If $S(n) = (1^3 + 2^3 + dots n^3)$ is the polynomial that satisfies $S(n)-S(n-1) = n^3$ and $S(1)=1$, then one can calculate from that equation that $S(0)=S(-1)=0$ and $S(-n-1)=S(n)$ for all negative $n$, so that $S$ is symmetric around $-1/2$. The vanishing at 0 and -1 implies that $S(t)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $t(t+1)$. The symmetry implies that $S(t)$ is a function (necessarily a polynomial) of $t(t+1)$.
$S(t)$ being of degree 4, this means $S(n) = a (n)(n+1) + b((n^2 +n)^2$ for constants $a$ and $b$. Summation being analogous to integration (and equal to it in a suitable limit), they have to agree on highest degree terms. Here it forces $b$ to be $1/4$ to match $int x^3 = x^4/4$. Computing the sum at a single point such as $n=1$ determines $a$, which is zero.
Similar reasoning shows that $S_k(n)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $n(n+1)$ for all $k$. For odd $k$, $S_k(n)$ is a polynomial in $n(n+1)$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The sum of a degree $n$ polynomial $f(n)$ will be a degree $n+1$ polynomial $S(n)$ for $n geq 0$ and both polynomials can be extended (maintaining the relation $S(n)-S(n-1) = f(n)$) to negative $n$.
To verify that the formula for $Sigma k^3$ is correct one need only test it for any 5 distinct values of $n$, but the structure of the answer can be predicted algebraically using the continuation to negative $n$.
If $S(n) = (1^3 + 2^3 + dots n^3)$ is the polynomial that satisfies $S(n)-S(n-1) = n^3$ and $S(1)=1$, then one can calculate from that equation that $S(0)=S(-1)=0$ and $S(-n-1)=S(n)$ for all negative $n$, so that $S$ is symmetric around $-1/2$. The vanishing at 0 and -1 implies that $S(t)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $t(t+1)$. The symmetry implies that $S(t)$ is a function (necessarily a polynomial) of $t(t+1)$.
$S(t)$ being of degree 4, this means $S(n) = a (n)(n+1) + b((n^2 +n)^2$ for constants $a$ and $b$. Summation being analogous to integration (and equal to it in a suitable limit), they have to agree on highest degree terms. Here it forces $b$ to be $1/4$ to match $int x^3 = x^4/4$. Computing the sum at a single point such as $n=1$ determines $a$, which is zero.
Similar reasoning shows that $S_k(n)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $n(n+1)$ for all $k$. For odd $k$, $S_k(n)$ is a polynomial in $n(n+1)$.
$endgroup$
The sum of a degree $n$ polynomial $f(n)$ will be a degree $n+1$ polynomial $S(n)$ for $n geq 0$ and both polynomials can be extended (maintaining the relation $S(n)-S(n-1) = f(n)$) to negative $n$.
To verify that the formula for $Sigma k^3$ is correct one need only test it for any 5 distinct values of $n$, but the structure of the answer can be predicted algebraically using the continuation to negative $n$.
If $S(n) = (1^3 + 2^3 + dots n^3)$ is the polynomial that satisfies $S(n)-S(n-1) = n^3$ and $S(1)=1$, then one can calculate from that equation that $S(0)=S(-1)=0$ and $S(-n-1)=S(n)$ for all negative $n$, so that $S$ is symmetric around $-1/2$. The vanishing at 0 and -1 implies that $S(t)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $t(t+1)$. The symmetry implies that $S(t)$ is a function (necessarily a polynomial) of $t(t+1)$.
$S(t)$ being of degree 4, this means $S(n) = a (n)(n+1) + b((n^2 +n)^2$ for constants $a$ and $b$. Summation being analogous to integration (and equal to it in a suitable limit), they have to agree on highest degree terms. Here it forces $b$ to be $1/4$ to match $int x^3 = x^4/4$. Computing the sum at a single point such as $n=1$ determines $a$, which is zero.
Similar reasoning shows that $S_k(n)$ is divisible as a polynomial by $n(n+1)$ for all $k$. For odd $k$, $S_k(n)$ is a polynomial in $n(n+1)$.
edited Nov 1 '11 at 6:31
answered Sep 2 '11 at 23:38
zyxzyx
31.6k33699
31.6k33699
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You know, $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$. Differentiate both sides once, $sum_1^n kx^{k-1}=frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1}$. Now taking $lim_{xto1}$ both sides and then squaring the result will give you the expression on the RHS. You can further differentiate $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$ until you get $k^3$ inside the expression, take limit again you will get the same result as of $(lim_{xto1}frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1})^2$. You can also prove it using telescopic series.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
1
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You know, $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$. Differentiate both sides once, $sum_1^n kx^{k-1}=frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1}$. Now taking $lim_{xto1}$ both sides and then squaring the result will give you the expression on the RHS. You can further differentiate $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$ until you get $k^3$ inside the expression, take limit again you will get the same result as of $(lim_{xto1}frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1})^2$. You can also prove it using telescopic series.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
1
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You know, $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$. Differentiate both sides once, $sum_1^n kx^{k-1}=frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1}$. Now taking $lim_{xto1}$ both sides and then squaring the result will give you the expression on the RHS. You can further differentiate $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$ until you get $k^3$ inside the expression, take limit again you will get the same result as of $(lim_{xto1}frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1})^2$. You can also prove it using telescopic series.
$endgroup$
You know, $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$. Differentiate both sides once, $sum_1^n kx^{k-1}=frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1}$. Now taking $lim_{xto1}$ both sides and then squaring the result will give you the expression on the RHS. You can further differentiate $sum_0^n x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$ until you get $k^3$ inside the expression, take limit again you will get the same result as of $(lim_{xto1}frac{x^n(nx-n-1)+1}{x^2-2x+1})^2$. You can also prove it using telescopic series.
edited Jun 27 '12 at 9:40
user5501
answered Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
AangAang
12.7k22365
12.7k22365
1
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
1
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
1
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
1
1
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
why does the assumption hold? this is usually proved using induction...
$endgroup$
– akkkk
Jun 27 '12 at 9:47
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
what assumption??
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:48
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
I guess Auke means $sum_{0}^{n} x^k=frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$.
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:12
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
$begingroup$
LHS is a geometric series. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:14
1
1
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
$begingroup$
@Auke: one can also prove it like this - let $f(x) = sumlimits_{k=0}^nx^k$, then $f(x) - xf(x)$ is: $$ begin{align} 1+&x+x^2+dots+x^n \ &- \ &x+x^2+dots+x^n+x^{n+1} end{align} $$ which is $1-x^{n+1}$. Hence $$ (1-x)f(x) = 1-x^{n+1} $$ as needed.
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Jun 27 '12 at 12:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a direct algebraic proof. $$sum_{k=1}^n(k^3-k^2)=2sum_{k=1}^nkcdotfrac{k(k-1)}2=2sum_{k=1}^nksum_{l=1}^{k-1}l=2sum_{1leqslant l<kleqslant n}kl=left(sum_{k=1}^nkright)^2-sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a direct algebraic proof. $$sum_{k=1}^n(k^3-k^2)=2sum_{k=1}^nkcdotfrac{k(k-1)}2=2sum_{k=1}^nksum_{l=1}^{k-1}l=2sum_{1leqslant l<kleqslant n}kl=left(sum_{k=1}^nkright)^2-sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a direct algebraic proof. $$sum_{k=1}^n(k^3-k^2)=2sum_{k=1}^nkcdotfrac{k(k-1)}2=2sum_{k=1}^nksum_{l=1}^{k-1}l=2sum_{1leqslant l<kleqslant n}kl=left(sum_{k=1}^nkright)^2-sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
$endgroup$
Here's a direct algebraic proof. $$sum_{k=1}^n(k^3-k^2)=2sum_{k=1}^nkcdotfrac{k(k-1)}2=2sum_{k=1}^nksum_{l=1}^{k-1}l=2sum_{1leqslant l<kleqslant n}kl=left(sum_{k=1}^nkright)^2-sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
answered Apr 1 '15 at 13:27
rabotarabota
14.2k32782
14.2k32782
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $$A=sum_1^n k^3=frac{1}{4}n^4+frac{1}{2}n^3+frac{1}{4}n^2$$ and $$B=sum_1^n k=frac{1}{2}n^2+frac{1}{2}n$$ $A-B^2=0$. :)
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $$A=sum_1^n k^3=frac{1}{4}n^4+frac{1}{2}n^3+frac{1}{4}n^2$$ and $$B=sum_1^n k=frac{1}{2}n^2+frac{1}{2}n$$ $A-B^2=0$. :)
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know that $$A=sum_1^n k^3=frac{1}{4}n^4+frac{1}{2}n^3+frac{1}{4}n^2$$ and $$B=sum_1^n k=frac{1}{2}n^2+frac{1}{2}n$$ $A-B^2=0$. :)
$endgroup$
We know that $$A=sum_1^n k^3=frac{1}{4}n^4+frac{1}{2}n^3+frac{1}{4}n^2$$ and $$B=sum_1^n k=frac{1}{2}n^2+frac{1}{2}n$$ $A-B^2=0$. :)
edited Apr 1 '16 at 19:08
Michael Hardy
1
1
answered Jun 27 '12 at 10:30
mrsmrs
1
1
2
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
2
2
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
If you are presenting this proof,write it nicely. $A=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}$ and $B=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$,obviously $A=B^2$
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
@avatar: Dear Avatar; I will. Your proof is great and it looks analytically. Thanks. :-)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:48
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
sorry, if you felt that i was being rude.
$endgroup$
– Aang
Jun 27 '12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
$begingroup$
@avatar: Your proof lights mine. No Problem at all. WELCOME Avatar. :) :)
$endgroup$
– mrs
Jun 27 '12 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$f(n)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+n^3$
$f(n-1)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+(n-1)^3$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=n^3$
if $f(n)= (1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2$ then
$$f(n)-f(n-1)=(1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2-(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))^2$$
using $a^2-b^2=(a+b)(a-b)$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=$
$=[1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+cdots+(n-1)+(n-1)+n][1-1+2-2+3-3+4-4+cdots+(n-1)-(n-1)+n]=$
$=[2(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))+n]n=(2frac{n(n-1)}{2}+n)n=(n(n-1)+n)n=n^3$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$f(n)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+n^3$
$f(n-1)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+(n-1)^3$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=n^3$
if $f(n)= (1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2$ then
$$f(n)-f(n-1)=(1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2-(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))^2$$
using $a^2-b^2=(a+b)(a-b)$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=$
$=[1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+cdots+(n-1)+(n-1)+n][1-1+2-2+3-3+4-4+cdots+(n-1)-(n-1)+n]=$
$=[2(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))+n]n=(2frac{n(n-1)}{2}+n)n=(n(n-1)+n)n=n^3$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$f(n)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+n^3$
$f(n-1)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+(n-1)^3$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=n^3$
if $f(n)= (1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2$ then
$$f(n)-f(n-1)=(1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2-(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))^2$$
using $a^2-b^2=(a+b)(a-b)$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=$
$=[1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+cdots+(n-1)+(n-1)+n][1-1+2-2+3-3+4-4+cdots+(n-1)-(n-1)+n]=$
$=[2(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))+n]n=(2frac{n(n-1)}{2}+n)n=(n(n-1)+n)n=n^3$
$endgroup$
$f(n)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+n^3$
$f(n-1)=1^3+2^3+3^3+cdots+(n-1)^3$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=n^3$
if $f(n)= (1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2$ then
$$f(n)-f(n-1)=(1+2+3+4+cdots+n)^2-(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))^2$$
using $a^2-b^2=(a+b)(a-b)$
$f(n)-f(n-1)=$
$=[1+1+2+2+3+3+4+4+cdots+(n-1)+(n-1)+n][1-1+2-2+3-3+4-4+cdots+(n-1)-(n-1)+n]=$
$=[2(1+2+3+4+cdots+(n-1))+n]n=(2frac{n(n-1)}{2}+n)n=(n(n-1)+n)n=n^3$
edited Jun 8 '16 at 22:56
Michael Hardy
1
1
answered Jun 27 '12 at 12:18
MathloverMathlover
6,25222469
6,25222469
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulhaber%27s_formula#Faulhaber_polynomials
If $p$ is odd, then $1^p+2^p+3^p+cdots+n^p$ is a polynomial function of $a=1+2+3+cdots+n$. If $p=3$, then then the sum is $a^2$; if $p=5$ then it's $(4a^3-a^2)/3$, and so on.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulhaber%27s_formula#Faulhaber_polynomials
If $p$ is odd, then $1^p+2^p+3^p+cdots+n^p$ is a polynomial function of $a=1+2+3+cdots+n$. If $p=3$, then then the sum is $a^2$; if $p=5$ then it's $(4a^3-a^2)/3$, and so on.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulhaber%27s_formula#Faulhaber_polynomials
If $p$ is odd, then $1^p+2^p+3^p+cdots+n^p$ is a polynomial function of $a=1+2+3+cdots+n$. If $p=3$, then then the sum is $a^2$; if $p=5$ then it's $(4a^3-a^2)/3$, and so on.
$endgroup$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulhaber%27s_formula#Faulhaber_polynomials
If $p$ is odd, then $1^p+2^p+3^p+cdots+n^p$ is a polynomial function of $a=1+2+3+cdots+n$. If $p=3$, then then the sum is $a^2$; if $p=5$ then it's $(4a^3-a^2)/3$, and so on.
answered Sep 3 '11 at 1:29
Michael HardyMichael Hardy
1
1
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
$begingroup$
And $a$ is always a factor of $p$.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Sep 3 '11 at 13:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Chance would have it that I stumbled* upon this article today:
http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2010/03/04/nichomachuss-theorem/
It seems to answer your question.
(* That is, @AlgebraFact on Twitter posted a link)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Chance would have it that I stumbled* upon this article today:
http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2010/03/04/nichomachuss-theorem/
It seems to answer your question.
(* That is, @AlgebraFact on Twitter posted a link)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Chance would have it that I stumbled* upon this article today:
http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2010/03/04/nichomachuss-theorem/
It seems to answer your question.
(* That is, @AlgebraFact on Twitter posted a link)
$endgroup$
Chance would have it that I stumbled* upon this article today:
http://blogs.mathworks.com/loren/2010/03/04/nichomachuss-theorem/
It seems to answer your question.
(* That is, @AlgebraFact on Twitter posted a link)
answered Sep 2 '11 at 21:19
Fredrik MeyerFredrik Meyer
15.3k24165
15.3k24165
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The square in the identity is the area of the triangle below, while the cubes are the area's of the trapezoidal layers, with heights $k = 1, 2, cdots, n$
The trapezoids have area $k^3$ because their height equals $k$ and the $text{width}_{text{atHalfHeight}}$ consists of $k$ diagonals with width $k$:
The total of the triangle is its squared height $(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2$, because this triangle can be turned into a square:
Therefore:
$(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2 = sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ , $blacksquare$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The square in the identity is the area of the triangle below, while the cubes are the area's of the trapezoidal layers, with heights $k = 1, 2, cdots, n$
The trapezoids have area $k^3$ because their height equals $k$ and the $text{width}_{text{atHalfHeight}}$ consists of $k$ diagonals with width $k$:
The total of the triangle is its squared height $(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2$, because this triangle can be turned into a square:
Therefore:
$(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2 = sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ , $blacksquare$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The square in the identity is the area of the triangle below, while the cubes are the area's of the trapezoidal layers, with heights $k = 1, 2, cdots, n$
The trapezoids have area $k^3$ because their height equals $k$ and the $text{width}_{text{atHalfHeight}}$ consists of $k$ diagonals with width $k$:
The total of the triangle is its squared height $(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2$, because this triangle can be turned into a square:
Therefore:
$(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2 = sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ , $blacksquare$
$endgroup$
The square in the identity is the area of the triangle below, while the cubes are the area's of the trapezoidal layers, with heights $k = 1, 2, cdots, n$
The trapezoids have area $k^3$ because their height equals $k$ and the $text{width}_{text{atHalfHeight}}$ consists of $k$ diagonals with width $k$:
The total of the triangle is its squared height $(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2$, because this triangle can be turned into a square:
Therefore:
$(1 + 2 + cdots + n)^2 = sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ , $blacksquare$
edited Dec 18 '15 at 15:52
answered Dec 18 '15 at 1:38
Job BouwmanJob Bouwman
966811
966811
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One way to show that
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = bigg(sum_{i=1}^n i bigg)^2$$
is to add up the entries in the multiplication tables, but first we need to show that
$$1+2+3+dots+n+dots+3+2+1 = n^2$$
For this, see the image below (n=7)
$$7^2=color{green}{1+2+3+4+5+6+7}color{red}{+6+5+4+3+2+1}$$
Next, consider the standard multiplication table that we are all familiar with.The graphic shows the table up to the 9s.
We can add up the entries in any order that we wish.
One way would be to add up a series of Ls (the 6th L ($L_6$) is highlighted in yellow).
$$begin{align}
L_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+30+24+18+12+6\
&=6(1+2+3+4+5+6+5+4+3+2+1)\
&=6(6^2)\
&=6^3
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries in the table becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n i^3$$
Alternatively, we could just add up each row. The 6th row (R_6) would be
$$begin{align}
R_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+42+48+54\
&= 6(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)\
&= 6sum_{i=1}^9 i
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n R_i = sum_{i=1}^n bigg(isum_{j=1}^n jbigg)=bigg(sum_{j=1}^n jbigg)bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
Thus we have
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n R_i=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One way to show that
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = bigg(sum_{i=1}^n i bigg)^2$$
is to add up the entries in the multiplication tables, but first we need to show that
$$1+2+3+dots+n+dots+3+2+1 = n^2$$
For this, see the image below (n=7)
$$7^2=color{green}{1+2+3+4+5+6+7}color{red}{+6+5+4+3+2+1}$$
Next, consider the standard multiplication table that we are all familiar with.The graphic shows the table up to the 9s.
We can add up the entries in any order that we wish.
One way would be to add up a series of Ls (the 6th L ($L_6$) is highlighted in yellow).
$$begin{align}
L_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+30+24+18+12+6\
&=6(1+2+3+4+5+6+5+4+3+2+1)\
&=6(6^2)\
&=6^3
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries in the table becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n i^3$$
Alternatively, we could just add up each row. The 6th row (R_6) would be
$$begin{align}
R_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+42+48+54\
&= 6(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)\
&= 6sum_{i=1}^9 i
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n R_i = sum_{i=1}^n bigg(isum_{j=1}^n jbigg)=bigg(sum_{j=1}^n jbigg)bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
Thus we have
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n R_i=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One way to show that
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = bigg(sum_{i=1}^n i bigg)^2$$
is to add up the entries in the multiplication tables, but first we need to show that
$$1+2+3+dots+n+dots+3+2+1 = n^2$$
For this, see the image below (n=7)
$$7^2=color{green}{1+2+3+4+5+6+7}color{red}{+6+5+4+3+2+1}$$
Next, consider the standard multiplication table that we are all familiar with.The graphic shows the table up to the 9s.
We can add up the entries in any order that we wish.
One way would be to add up a series of Ls (the 6th L ($L_6$) is highlighted in yellow).
$$begin{align}
L_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+30+24+18+12+6\
&=6(1+2+3+4+5+6+5+4+3+2+1)\
&=6(6^2)\
&=6^3
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries in the table becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n i^3$$
Alternatively, we could just add up each row. The 6th row (R_6) would be
$$begin{align}
R_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+42+48+54\
&= 6(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)\
&= 6sum_{i=1}^9 i
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n R_i = sum_{i=1}^n bigg(isum_{j=1}^n jbigg)=bigg(sum_{j=1}^n jbigg)bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
Thus we have
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n R_i=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
$endgroup$
One way to show that
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = bigg(sum_{i=1}^n i bigg)^2$$
is to add up the entries in the multiplication tables, but first we need to show that
$$1+2+3+dots+n+dots+3+2+1 = n^2$$
For this, see the image below (n=7)
$$7^2=color{green}{1+2+3+4+5+6+7}color{red}{+6+5+4+3+2+1}$$
Next, consider the standard multiplication table that we are all familiar with.The graphic shows the table up to the 9s.
We can add up the entries in any order that we wish.
One way would be to add up a series of Ls (the 6th L ($L_6$) is highlighted in yellow).
$$begin{align}
L_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+30+24+18+12+6\
&=6(1+2+3+4+5+6+5+4+3+2+1)\
&=6(6^2)\
&=6^3
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries in the table becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n i^3$$
Alternatively, we could just add up each row. The 6th row (R_6) would be
$$begin{align}
R_6 &= 6+12+18+24+30+36+42+48+54\
&= 6(1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9)\
&= 6sum_{i=1}^9 i
end{align}$$
And the sum of all the entries becomes
$$sum_{i=1}^n R_i = sum_{i=1}^n bigg(isum_{j=1}^n jbigg)=bigg(sum_{j=1}^n jbigg)bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
Thus we have
$$sum_{i=1}^n i^3 = sum_{i=1}^n L_i = sum_{i=1}^n R_i=bigg(sum_{i=1}^n ibigg)^2$$
edited Jun 8 '16 at 22:58
Michael Hardy
1
1
answered Dec 27 '14 at 6:27
John JoyJohn Joy
6,29911727
6,29911727
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is about the same proof as here, the presentation is a bit different though. This is another way to make $k^3$ appear than what was shown here, here and here.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is about the same proof as here, the presentation is a bit different though. This is another way to make $k^3$ appear than what was shown here, here and here.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is about the same proof as here, the presentation is a bit different though. This is another way to make $k^3$ appear than what was shown here, here and here.
$endgroup$
This is about the same proof as here, the presentation is a bit different though. This is another way to make $k^3$ appear than what was shown here, here and here.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:20
Community♦
1
1
answered Sep 4 '11 at 8:12
WokWok
1,5781323
1,5781323
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a simple bijective proof of a different sort:
Consider a staircase with $n$ steps, built out of $sum_{k=1}^n k$ blocks. In other words, take the set ${(i,j) in mathbb{Z}timesmathbb{Z}: i + j leq n, i > 0, j > 0}$.
Then $left(sum_{k=1}^n kright)^2$ is the number of ordered pairs $(B_1,B_2)$ of blocks.
And $sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ is the number of ordered $4$-tuples $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $k in {1,ldots,n}$, and $b_1$ is along the $k$-th diagonal $b_1 in {(k+1-j,j): j in {1,ldots,k}}$, and $b_2$ is along the bottom $b_2 in {(j,1): j in {1,ldots, k}}$ and $b_3$ is along the left side $b_3 in {(1,j): j in {1, ldots, k}}$.
The bijection:
Given an ordered tuple $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, let $A_1 = b_1$ and let $A_2$ given by $b_2$ and $b_3$ as its $x$ and $y$ coordinates, so if $b_2 = (i,1)$ and $b_3 = (1,j)$ then $A_2 = (i,j)$.
Case 1: $A_2$ is on or below the $k$-th diagonal. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_1, A_2)$.
Case 2: $A_2$ is above the $k$-the diagonal. Then let $A_2'$ be the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal of $A_2$. That is, if $A_2 = (i,j)$ then $A_2' = (k+1-j,k+1-i)$. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_2', A_1)$.
The inverse:
To get the inverse, take whichever of $B_1$ and $B_2$ is on a higher diagonal (i.e. has greater sum of its coordinates), taking $B_1$ in case of ties, and let that be $b_1$ and let $k$ be the sum of the coordinates of $b_1$.
Case 1: If $B_1$ is used: Take $B_2$ and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_2$.
Case 2: If $B_2$ is used: Take $B_1'$ (i.e. the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal, as above) and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_1'$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a simple bijective proof of a different sort:
Consider a staircase with $n$ steps, built out of $sum_{k=1}^n k$ blocks. In other words, take the set ${(i,j) in mathbb{Z}timesmathbb{Z}: i + j leq n, i > 0, j > 0}$.
Then $left(sum_{k=1}^n kright)^2$ is the number of ordered pairs $(B_1,B_2)$ of blocks.
And $sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ is the number of ordered $4$-tuples $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $k in {1,ldots,n}$, and $b_1$ is along the $k$-th diagonal $b_1 in {(k+1-j,j): j in {1,ldots,k}}$, and $b_2$ is along the bottom $b_2 in {(j,1): j in {1,ldots, k}}$ and $b_3$ is along the left side $b_3 in {(1,j): j in {1, ldots, k}}$.
The bijection:
Given an ordered tuple $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, let $A_1 = b_1$ and let $A_2$ given by $b_2$ and $b_3$ as its $x$ and $y$ coordinates, so if $b_2 = (i,1)$ and $b_3 = (1,j)$ then $A_2 = (i,j)$.
Case 1: $A_2$ is on or below the $k$-th diagonal. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_1, A_2)$.
Case 2: $A_2$ is above the $k$-the diagonal. Then let $A_2'$ be the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal of $A_2$. That is, if $A_2 = (i,j)$ then $A_2' = (k+1-j,k+1-i)$. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_2', A_1)$.
The inverse:
To get the inverse, take whichever of $B_1$ and $B_2$ is on a higher diagonal (i.e. has greater sum of its coordinates), taking $B_1$ in case of ties, and let that be $b_1$ and let $k$ be the sum of the coordinates of $b_1$.
Case 1: If $B_1$ is used: Take $B_2$ and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_2$.
Case 2: If $B_2$ is used: Take $B_1'$ (i.e. the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal, as above) and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_1'$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a simple bijective proof of a different sort:
Consider a staircase with $n$ steps, built out of $sum_{k=1}^n k$ blocks. In other words, take the set ${(i,j) in mathbb{Z}timesmathbb{Z}: i + j leq n, i > 0, j > 0}$.
Then $left(sum_{k=1}^n kright)^2$ is the number of ordered pairs $(B_1,B_2)$ of blocks.
And $sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ is the number of ordered $4$-tuples $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $k in {1,ldots,n}$, and $b_1$ is along the $k$-th diagonal $b_1 in {(k+1-j,j): j in {1,ldots,k}}$, and $b_2$ is along the bottom $b_2 in {(j,1): j in {1,ldots, k}}$ and $b_3$ is along the left side $b_3 in {(1,j): j in {1, ldots, k}}$.
The bijection:
Given an ordered tuple $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, let $A_1 = b_1$ and let $A_2$ given by $b_2$ and $b_3$ as its $x$ and $y$ coordinates, so if $b_2 = (i,1)$ and $b_3 = (1,j)$ then $A_2 = (i,j)$.
Case 1: $A_2$ is on or below the $k$-th diagonal. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_1, A_2)$.
Case 2: $A_2$ is above the $k$-the diagonal. Then let $A_2'$ be the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal of $A_2$. That is, if $A_2 = (i,j)$ then $A_2' = (k+1-j,k+1-i)$. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_2', A_1)$.
The inverse:
To get the inverse, take whichever of $B_1$ and $B_2$ is on a higher diagonal (i.e. has greater sum of its coordinates), taking $B_1$ in case of ties, and let that be $b_1$ and let $k$ be the sum of the coordinates of $b_1$.
Case 1: If $B_1$ is used: Take $B_2$ and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_2$.
Case 2: If $B_2$ is used: Take $B_1'$ (i.e. the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal, as above) and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_1'$.
$endgroup$
Here's a simple bijective proof of a different sort:
Consider a staircase with $n$ steps, built out of $sum_{k=1}^n k$ blocks. In other words, take the set ${(i,j) in mathbb{Z}timesmathbb{Z}: i + j leq n, i > 0, j > 0}$.
Then $left(sum_{k=1}^n kright)^2$ is the number of ordered pairs $(B_1,B_2)$ of blocks.
And $sum_{k=1}^n k^3$ is the number of ordered $4$-tuples $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $k in {1,ldots,n}$, and $b_1$ is along the $k$-th diagonal $b_1 in {(k+1-j,j): j in {1,ldots,k}}$, and $b_2$ is along the bottom $b_2 in {(j,1): j in {1,ldots, k}}$ and $b_3$ is along the left side $b_3 in {(1,j): j in {1, ldots, k}}$.
The bijection:
Given an ordered tuple $(k,b_1,b_2,b_3)$, let $A_1 = b_1$ and let $A_2$ given by $b_2$ and $b_3$ as its $x$ and $y$ coordinates, so if $b_2 = (i,1)$ and $b_3 = (1,j)$ then $A_2 = (i,j)$.
Case 1: $A_2$ is on or below the $k$-th diagonal. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_1, A_2)$.
Case 2: $A_2$ is above the $k$-the diagonal. Then let $A_2'$ be the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal of $A_2$. That is, if $A_2 = (i,j)$ then $A_2' = (k+1-j,k+1-i)$. Then let $(B_1, B_2) = (A_2', A_1)$.
The inverse:
To get the inverse, take whichever of $B_1$ and $B_2$ is on a higher diagonal (i.e. has greater sum of its coordinates), taking $B_1$ in case of ties, and let that be $b_1$ and let $k$ be the sum of the coordinates of $b_1$.
Case 1: If $B_1$ is used: Take $B_2$ and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_2$.
Case 2: If $B_2$ is used: Take $B_1'$ (i.e. the reflection across the $k$-th diagonal, as above) and let $b_2$ and $b_3$ be given by points with the same the $x$- and $y$-coordinates, respectively, as $B_1'$.
edited Mar 23 '15 at 2:18
answered Mar 23 '15 at 2:13
aesaes
6,27911634
6,27911634
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After many years I still think the best way to solve this kind of problem in a natural and systematic way is to view it as a recurrence relation with constants coefficients, in this case, $x_n = x_{n-1}+n^3$. The way I learnt to do so was by using characteristic polynomial but you may prefer some other method...
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After many years I still think the best way to solve this kind of problem in a natural and systematic way is to view it as a recurrence relation with constants coefficients, in this case, $x_n = x_{n-1}+n^3$. The way I learnt to do so was by using characteristic polynomial but you may prefer some other method...
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
After many years I still think the best way to solve this kind of problem in a natural and systematic way is to view it as a recurrence relation with constants coefficients, in this case, $x_n = x_{n-1}+n^3$. The way I learnt to do so was by using characteristic polynomial but you may prefer some other method...
$endgroup$
After many years I still think the best way to solve this kind of problem in a natural and systematic way is to view it as a recurrence relation with constants coefficients, in this case, $x_n = x_{n-1}+n^3$. The way I learnt to do so was by using characteristic polynomial but you may prefer some other method...
edited Mar 29 '18 at 14:23
answered Mar 12 '18 at 0:24
JavierJavier
2,07521234
2,07521234
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For every $kinmathbb{N}$
$$(k+1)^4=k^4+4k^3++6k^2+4k+1$$
therefore
$$sum_{k=1}^n(k+1)^4=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+4sum_{k=1}^nk+sum_{k=1}^n1$$
which is equivalent to
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^4+(n+1)^4-1=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+2n(n+1)+n$$
After simplifications we obtain
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=(n+1)^4-1-2n(n+1)-n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
Using
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^2=frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}hspace{0.2cm}text{and}hspace{0.2cm}sum_{k=1}^nk=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$
we get
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2\=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-n(n+1)(2n+1)\=n^4+2n^3+n^2=n^2(n+1)^2$$
Finally
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^3=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}=Big(frac{n(n+1)}{2}Big)^2=Big(sum_{k=1}^nkBig)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For every $kinmathbb{N}$
$$(k+1)^4=k^4+4k^3++6k^2+4k+1$$
therefore
$$sum_{k=1}^n(k+1)^4=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+4sum_{k=1}^nk+sum_{k=1}^n1$$
which is equivalent to
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^4+(n+1)^4-1=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+2n(n+1)+n$$
After simplifications we obtain
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=(n+1)^4-1-2n(n+1)-n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
Using
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^2=frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}hspace{0.2cm}text{and}hspace{0.2cm}sum_{k=1}^nk=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$
we get
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2\=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-n(n+1)(2n+1)\=n^4+2n^3+n^2=n^2(n+1)^2$$
Finally
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^3=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}=Big(frac{n(n+1)}{2}Big)^2=Big(sum_{k=1}^nkBig)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For every $kinmathbb{N}$
$$(k+1)^4=k^4+4k^3++6k^2+4k+1$$
therefore
$$sum_{k=1}^n(k+1)^4=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+4sum_{k=1}^nk+sum_{k=1}^n1$$
which is equivalent to
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^4+(n+1)^4-1=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+2n(n+1)+n$$
After simplifications we obtain
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=(n+1)^4-1-2n(n+1)-n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
Using
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^2=frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}hspace{0.2cm}text{and}hspace{0.2cm}sum_{k=1}^nk=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$
we get
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2\=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-n(n+1)(2n+1)\=n^4+2n^3+n^2=n^2(n+1)^2$$
Finally
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^3=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}=Big(frac{n(n+1)}{2}Big)^2=Big(sum_{k=1}^nkBig)^2$$
$endgroup$
For every $kinmathbb{N}$
$$(k+1)^4=k^4+4k^3++6k^2+4k+1$$
therefore
$$sum_{k=1}^n(k+1)^4=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+4sum_{k=1}^nk+sum_{k=1}^n1$$
which is equivalent to
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^4+(n+1)^4-1=sum_{k=1}^nk^4+4sum_{k=1}^nk^3+6sum_{k=1}^nk^2+2n(n+1)+n$$
After simplifications we obtain
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=(n+1)^4-1-2n(n+1)-n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2$$
Using
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^2=frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}hspace{0.2cm}text{and}hspace{0.2cm}sum_{k=1}^nk=frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$
we get
$$4sum_{k=1}^nk^3=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-6sum_{k=1}^nk^2\=n^4+4n^3+4n^2+n-n(n+1)(2n+1)\=n^4+2n^3+n^2=n^2(n+1)^2$$
Finally
$$sum_{k=1}^nk^3=frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4}=Big(frac{n(n+1)}{2}Big)^2=Big(sum_{k=1}^nkBig)^2$$
answered Mar 29 '18 at 14:50
ArianArian
5,320917
5,320917
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We begin by writing $k^3$ in a more clever fashion: $k^3 = k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 - 2k$ :
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 -2k$$
Distributing the summation we obtain: $$ sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice, $$k(k-1)(k-2) = frac {k!}{(k-3)!}$$
Now we have
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice that we have nearly obtained the binomial expansion of K choose 3, all we need to do is divide by 3! So we offset this by also taking the product of 3!
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!3!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^nbinom{k}{3} = 3!binom{n+1}{4}$$
We have now obtained
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = 3!binom{n+1}{4} + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Focusing solely on the right-hand side we have
$$6biggl(frac {(n+1)!}{(n-3)!4!}biggr) + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Assuming we already know the sum of the sequence of integers and squared integers (the 2 sums we have left) we have
$$ frac {(n+1)(n)(n-1)(n-2)}{4} + 3frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} - 2frac {n(n+1)}{2}$$
Generating common denominators and with a bit of algebra we now have
$$ frac {n^4-2n^3-n^2+2n+4n^3+6n^2+2n-4n^2-4n}{4}$$
Combining like-terms we have reached our solution:
$$ frac {n^4+2n^3+n^2}{4} = biggl(sum_{k=0}^n kbiggr)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We begin by writing $k^3$ in a more clever fashion: $k^3 = k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 - 2k$ :
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 -2k$$
Distributing the summation we obtain: $$ sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice, $$k(k-1)(k-2) = frac {k!}{(k-3)!}$$
Now we have
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice that we have nearly obtained the binomial expansion of K choose 3, all we need to do is divide by 3! So we offset this by also taking the product of 3!
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!3!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^nbinom{k}{3} = 3!binom{n+1}{4}$$
We have now obtained
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = 3!binom{n+1}{4} + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Focusing solely on the right-hand side we have
$$6biggl(frac {(n+1)!}{(n-3)!4!}biggr) + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Assuming we already know the sum of the sequence of integers and squared integers (the 2 sums we have left) we have
$$ frac {(n+1)(n)(n-1)(n-2)}{4} + 3frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} - 2frac {n(n+1)}{2}$$
Generating common denominators and with a bit of algebra we now have
$$ frac {n^4-2n^3-n^2+2n+4n^3+6n^2+2n-4n^2-4n}{4}$$
Combining like-terms we have reached our solution:
$$ frac {n^4+2n^3+n^2}{4} = biggl(sum_{k=0}^n kbiggr)^2$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We begin by writing $k^3$ in a more clever fashion: $k^3 = k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 - 2k$ :
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 -2k$$
Distributing the summation we obtain: $$ sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice, $$k(k-1)(k-2) = frac {k!}{(k-3)!}$$
Now we have
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice that we have nearly obtained the binomial expansion of K choose 3, all we need to do is divide by 3! So we offset this by also taking the product of 3!
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!3!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^nbinom{k}{3} = 3!binom{n+1}{4}$$
We have now obtained
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = 3!binom{n+1}{4} + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Focusing solely on the right-hand side we have
$$6biggl(frac {(n+1)!}{(n-3)!4!}biggr) + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Assuming we already know the sum of the sequence of integers and squared integers (the 2 sums we have left) we have
$$ frac {(n+1)(n)(n-1)(n-2)}{4} + 3frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} - 2frac {n(n+1)}{2}$$
Generating common denominators and with a bit of algebra we now have
$$ frac {n^4-2n^3-n^2+2n+4n^3+6n^2+2n-4n^2-4n}{4}$$
Combining like-terms we have reached our solution:
$$ frac {n^4+2n^3+n^2}{4} = biggl(sum_{k=0}^n kbiggr)^2$$
$endgroup$
We begin by writing $k^3$ in a more clever fashion: $k^3 = k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 - 2k$ :
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + 3k^2 -2k$$
Distributing the summation we obtain: $$ sum_{k=0}^n k(k-1)(k-2) + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice, $$k(k-1)(k-2) = frac {k!}{(k-3)!}$$
Now we have
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} + sum_{k=0}^n 3k^2 - sum_{k=0}^n 2k$$
Notice that we have nearly obtained the binomial expansion of K choose 3, all we need to do is divide by 3! So we offset this by also taking the product of 3!
$$sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^n frac {k!}{(k-3)!3!} = 3!sum_{k=0}^nbinom{k}{3} = 3!binom{n+1}{4}$$
We have now obtained
$$sum_{k=0}^n k^3 = 3!binom{n+1}{4} + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Focusing solely on the right-hand side we have
$$6biggl(frac {(n+1)!}{(n-3)!4!}biggr) + 3sum_{k=0}^n k^2 - 2sum_{k=0}^n k$$
Assuming we already know the sum of the sequence of integers and squared integers (the 2 sums we have left) we have
$$ frac {(n+1)(n)(n-1)(n-2)}{4} + 3frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6} - 2frac {n(n+1)}{2}$$
Generating common denominators and with a bit of algebra we now have
$$ frac {n^4-2n^3-n^2+2n+4n^3+6n^2+2n-4n^2-4n}{4}$$
Combining like-terms we have reached our solution:
$$ frac {n^4+2n^3+n^2}{4} = biggl(sum_{k=0}^n kbiggr)^2$$
edited Aug 18 '18 at 18:18
tinlyx
95421118
95421118
answered Aug 18 '18 at 17:16
Alexander B.Alexander B.
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61482%2fproving-the-identity-sum-k-1n-k3-big-sum-k-1n-k-big2-without-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/61798/…
$endgroup$
– Arjang
Jun 27 '12 at 9:22
$begingroup$
Look at this takayaiwamoto.com/Sums_and_Series/sumcube_1.html
$endgroup$
– pritam
Jun 27 '12 at 9:29
$begingroup$
See math.stackexchange.com/questions/120674 for remarks about proofs "not using induction".
$endgroup$
– sdcvvc
Jun 27 '12 at 10:13
$begingroup$
I merged the three existing posts which covered exactly this question, as each post had different interesting answers which should not be lost. I also deleted redundant comments, and comments about closing posts as duplicates. This fourth question is not considered a duplicate.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Jul 2 '12 at 11:30
2
$begingroup$
Since this question is asked frequently, it has been added to the list of Generalizations of Common questions. It has been kept seperate from the version which does use induction.
$endgroup$
– Eric Naslund
Aug 30 '12 at 0:23