How is the partial sum of a geometric sequence calculated? [duplicate]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Formula for calculating $sum_n=0^mnr^n$
4 answers
I have been asked to calculate a general formula for $1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + ... + Nb^N$
I think that a part of this is a geometric sequence, and I have rewritten this as
$f(x) = 1 + sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$
(I couldn't figure out a way to make the first term be 1 with the progression so I just removed it from the series instead)
When I look on Wolfram Alpha it says that the partial sum formula for $ sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$ is:
$$sum_i=1^n icdot x^i = frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2$$
On this question, an answer said that the general formula for the sum of a finite geometric series is:
$$sum_k=0^n-1x^k = frac1-x^n1-x$$
But if I substitute my ($icdot x^i$) into the formula mentioned above I don't get the same value as the one Wolfram gives me.
Two questions:
- Is it correct to pull the first term out of the series so it becomes a geometric series, or is there another way?
- How did Wolfram Alpha calculate that expression?
calculus
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Hans Lundmark, Cesareo, Asaf Karagila♦ Mar 18 at 8:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Formula for calculating $sum_n=0^mnr^n$
4 answers
I have been asked to calculate a general formula for $1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + ... + Nb^N$
I think that a part of this is a geometric sequence, and I have rewritten this as
$f(x) = 1 + sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$
(I couldn't figure out a way to make the first term be 1 with the progression so I just removed it from the series instead)
When I look on Wolfram Alpha it says that the partial sum formula for $ sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$ is:
$$sum_i=1^n icdot x^i = frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2$$
On this question, an answer said that the general formula for the sum of a finite geometric series is:
$$sum_k=0^n-1x^k = frac1-x^n1-x$$
But if I substitute my ($icdot x^i$) into the formula mentioned above I don't get the same value as the one Wolfram gives me.
Two questions:
- Is it correct to pull the first term out of the series so it becomes a geometric series, or is there another way?
- How did Wolfram Alpha calculate that expression?
calculus
$endgroup$
marked as duplicate by Hans Lundmark, Cesareo, Asaf Karagila♦ Mar 18 at 8:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
$begingroup$
The ratio of successive terms is not constant, so this is not a geometric sequence, though it may be related to one
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 13:54
$begingroup$
Thank you @J.W.Tanner, I will edit the question
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
Ok; by the way, I think we meant series (sum) rather than sequence
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 14:02
2
$begingroup$
This page could be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2782812/finite-sum-kxk. Or you can let $S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + cdots +nx^n$, and consider $S - xS$, and make sure you know the geometric series formula.
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 17 at 14:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Formula for calculating $sum_n=0^mnr^n$
4 answers
I have been asked to calculate a general formula for $1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + ... + Nb^N$
I think that a part of this is a geometric sequence, and I have rewritten this as
$f(x) = 1 + sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$
(I couldn't figure out a way to make the first term be 1 with the progression so I just removed it from the series instead)
When I look on Wolfram Alpha it says that the partial sum formula for $ sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$ is:
$$sum_i=1^n icdot x^i = frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2$$
On this question, an answer said that the general formula for the sum of a finite geometric series is:
$$sum_k=0^n-1x^k = frac1-x^n1-x$$
But if I substitute my ($icdot x^i$) into the formula mentioned above I don't get the same value as the one Wolfram gives me.
Two questions:
- Is it correct to pull the first term out of the series so it becomes a geometric series, or is there another way?
- How did Wolfram Alpha calculate that expression?
calculus
$endgroup$
This question already has an answer here:
Formula for calculating $sum_n=0^mnr^n$
4 answers
I have been asked to calculate a general formula for $1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + ... + Nb^N$
I think that a part of this is a geometric sequence, and I have rewritten this as
$f(x) = 1 + sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$
(I couldn't figure out a way to make the first term be 1 with the progression so I just removed it from the series instead)
When I look on Wolfram Alpha it says that the partial sum formula for $ sum_i=1^n icdot x^i$ is:
$$sum_i=1^n icdot x^i = frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2$$
On this question, an answer said that the general formula for the sum of a finite geometric series is:
$$sum_k=0^n-1x^k = frac1-x^n1-x$$
But if I substitute my ($icdot x^i$) into the formula mentioned above I don't get the same value as the one Wolfram gives me.
Two questions:
- Is it correct to pull the first term out of the series so it becomes a geometric series, or is there another way?
- How did Wolfram Alpha calculate that expression?
This question already has an answer here:
Formula for calculating $sum_n=0^mnr^n$
4 answers
calculus
calculus
edited Mar 17 at 14:51
Max
1,0041319
1,0041319
asked Mar 17 at 13:50
JoonJoon
1185
1185
marked as duplicate by Hans Lundmark, Cesareo, Asaf Karagila♦ Mar 18 at 8:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Hans Lundmark, Cesareo, Asaf Karagila♦ Mar 18 at 8:29
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
5
$begingroup$
The ratio of successive terms is not constant, so this is not a geometric sequence, though it may be related to one
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 13:54
$begingroup$
Thank you @J.W.Tanner, I will edit the question
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
Ok; by the way, I think we meant series (sum) rather than sequence
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 14:02
2
$begingroup$
This page could be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2782812/finite-sum-kxk. Or you can let $S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + cdots +nx^n$, and consider $S - xS$, and make sure you know the geometric series formula.
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 17 at 14:06
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
The ratio of successive terms is not constant, so this is not a geometric sequence, though it may be related to one
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 13:54
$begingroup$
Thank you @J.W.Tanner, I will edit the question
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
Ok; by the way, I think we meant series (sum) rather than sequence
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 14:02
2
$begingroup$
This page could be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2782812/finite-sum-kxk. Or you can let $S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + cdots +nx^n$, and consider $S - xS$, and make sure you know the geometric series formula.
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 17 at 14:06
5
5
$begingroup$
The ratio of successive terms is not constant, so this is not a geometric sequence, though it may be related to one
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 13:54
$begingroup$
The ratio of successive terms is not constant, so this is not a geometric sequence, though it may be related to one
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 13:54
$begingroup$
Thank you @J.W.Tanner, I will edit the question
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 13:59
$begingroup$
Thank you @J.W.Tanner, I will edit the question
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 13:59
1
1
$begingroup$
Ok; by the way, I think we meant series (sum) rather than sequence
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 14:02
$begingroup$
Ok; by the way, I think we meant series (sum) rather than sequence
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 14:02
2
2
$begingroup$
This page could be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2782812/finite-sum-kxk. Or you can let $S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + cdots +nx^n$, and consider $S - xS$, and make sure you know the geometric series formula.
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 17 at 14:06
$begingroup$
This page could be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2782812/finite-sum-kxk. Or you can let $S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + cdots +nx^n$, and consider $S - xS$, and make sure you know the geometric series formula.
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 17 at 14:06
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here's what I did to get the formula for partial sums of this series:
It was too much to type in LaTeX, so just did it on paper. Hope you don't mind.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
1
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
1
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The extra factor of $i$ or $k$ or whatever you call it means we no longer have a geometric series, but we can get one by differentiating with respect to $x$. You'll want to check powers of $x$ carefully too.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your presumptions are wrong. The first series is not a geometric series. and substituting $i*x^i$ into $sum_k=0^N x^k$ is not the same as $sum_i=0^Ni*x^i$.
Try to solve the problem using the principle of induction:
Let us assume the above relation holds for $n$: $sum_i=0^n ix^i=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2equiv=A_n$.
Now let us show it must also holds for $n+1$ and therefore for all $ninmathcalN$.
Thus,
beginalign
sum_i=0^n+1ix^i&=underbracesum_i=0^nix^i_=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1frac(1-x)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1*(x-1)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl((nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1(1+x^2-2x)biggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^n+2((n+1)x-n-2)+xbiggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^(n+1)+1((n+1)x-(n+1)-1)+xbiggr)
endalign
So if it holds for any $n$ it must hold for $n+1$ too and therefore for all natural numbers. Now, you only have to check that it holds for $n=0$ or $n=1$ and you are done.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint: Think derivatives w.r.t. $b,$:
$$1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + dotsm + Nb^N=bsum_k=1^Nk,b^k-1=bBigl(sum_k=0^Nb^kBigr)^!!'$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Start with $$S=1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + cdots + Nb^N$$
Multiply by $b$ and then subtract to give
$$bS=b + b^2 + 2b^3 + 3b^4 + cdots +(N-1)b^N + Nb^N+1$$
$$(b-1)S = -1 - b^2 - b^3 - b^4 - cdots -b^N + Nb^N+1$$
Do that again
$$b(b-1)S = -b - b^3 - b^4 - b^5 - cdots -b^N-b^N+1 - Nb^N+2$$
$$(b-1)^2S = 1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2$$
Finally simplify
$$S = dfrac1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2(b-1)^2.$$
As an example, with $b=2$ and $N=3$ the first line gives $S=1+2+8+24=35$ while the final line gives $S=frac1-2+4-64+961^2= 35$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here's what I did to get the formula for partial sums of this series:
It was too much to type in LaTeX, so just did it on paper. Hope you don't mind.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
1
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
1
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's what I did to get the formula for partial sums of this series:
It was too much to type in LaTeX, so just did it on paper. Hope you don't mind.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
1
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
1
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's what I did to get the formula for partial sums of this series:
It was too much to type in LaTeX, so just did it on paper. Hope you don't mind.
$endgroup$
Here's what I did to get the formula for partial sums of this series:
It was too much to type in LaTeX, so just did it on paper. Hope you don't mind.
edited Mar 17 at 14:23
answered Mar 17 at 14:02
KKZiomekKKZiomek
2,2441641
2,2441641
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
1
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
1
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
1
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
1
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
1
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
$begingroup$
Thank you! Could you please explain how you know to add the (1 - x) / (1 - x) to the series?
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 16:31
1
1
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@Joon it's just a clever trick. There's really no reason why would one multiply and divide by (1-x). I guess it just works :)
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:15
1
1
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
$begingroup$
If you analyze it closely you see that it cleverly cancels out like terms in a fashion that creates a geometric sequence. So I guess to know to multiply by (1-x) you have to observe and be clever. I didn't come up with this method. I found it in some paper about sequences long time ago
$endgroup$
– KKZiomek
Mar 17 at 17:17
1
1
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
$begingroup$
Thank you again, I could understand your method and follow along. Really appreciate it
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 17:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The extra factor of $i$ or $k$ or whatever you call it means we no longer have a geometric series, but we can get one by differentiating with respect to $x$. You'll want to check powers of $x$ carefully too.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The extra factor of $i$ or $k$ or whatever you call it means we no longer have a geometric series, but we can get one by differentiating with respect to $x$. You'll want to check powers of $x$ carefully too.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The extra factor of $i$ or $k$ or whatever you call it means we no longer have a geometric series, but we can get one by differentiating with respect to $x$. You'll want to check powers of $x$ carefully too.
$endgroup$
The extra factor of $i$ or $k$ or whatever you call it means we no longer have a geometric series, but we can get one by differentiating with respect to $x$. You'll want to check powers of $x$ carefully too.
edited Mar 17 at 20:27
answered Mar 17 at 13:55
J.G.J.G.
33.5k23252
33.5k23252
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your presumptions are wrong. The first series is not a geometric series. and substituting $i*x^i$ into $sum_k=0^N x^k$ is not the same as $sum_i=0^Ni*x^i$.
Try to solve the problem using the principle of induction:
Let us assume the above relation holds for $n$: $sum_i=0^n ix^i=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2equiv=A_n$.
Now let us show it must also holds for $n+1$ and therefore for all $ninmathcalN$.
Thus,
beginalign
sum_i=0^n+1ix^i&=underbracesum_i=0^nix^i_=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1frac(1-x)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1*(x-1)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl((nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1(1+x^2-2x)biggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^n+2((n+1)x-n-2)+xbiggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^(n+1)+1((n+1)x-(n+1)-1)+xbiggr)
endalign
So if it holds for any $n$ it must hold for $n+1$ too and therefore for all natural numbers. Now, you only have to check that it holds for $n=0$ or $n=1$ and you are done.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your presumptions are wrong. The first series is not a geometric series. and substituting $i*x^i$ into $sum_k=0^N x^k$ is not the same as $sum_i=0^Ni*x^i$.
Try to solve the problem using the principle of induction:
Let us assume the above relation holds for $n$: $sum_i=0^n ix^i=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2equiv=A_n$.
Now let us show it must also holds for $n+1$ and therefore for all $ninmathcalN$.
Thus,
beginalign
sum_i=0^n+1ix^i&=underbracesum_i=0^nix^i_=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1frac(1-x)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1*(x-1)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl((nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1(1+x^2-2x)biggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^n+2((n+1)x-n-2)+xbiggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^(n+1)+1((n+1)x-(n+1)-1)+xbiggr)
endalign
So if it holds for any $n$ it must hold for $n+1$ too and therefore for all natural numbers. Now, you only have to check that it holds for $n=0$ or $n=1$ and you are done.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your presumptions are wrong. The first series is not a geometric series. and substituting $i*x^i$ into $sum_k=0^N x^k$ is not the same as $sum_i=0^Ni*x^i$.
Try to solve the problem using the principle of induction:
Let us assume the above relation holds for $n$: $sum_i=0^n ix^i=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2equiv=A_n$.
Now let us show it must also holds for $n+1$ and therefore for all $ninmathcalN$.
Thus,
beginalign
sum_i=0^n+1ix^i&=underbracesum_i=0^nix^i_=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1frac(1-x)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1*(x-1)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl((nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1(1+x^2-2x)biggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^n+2((n+1)x-n-2)+xbiggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^(n+1)+1((n+1)x-(n+1)-1)+xbiggr)
endalign
So if it holds for any $n$ it must hold for $n+1$ too and therefore for all natural numbers. Now, you only have to check that it holds for $n=0$ or $n=1$ and you are done.
$endgroup$
Your presumptions are wrong. The first series is not a geometric series. and substituting $i*x^i$ into $sum_k=0^N x^k$ is not the same as $sum_i=0^Ni*x^i$.
Try to solve the problem using the principle of induction:
Let us assume the above relation holds for $n$: $sum_i=0^n ix^i=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2equiv=A_n$.
Now let us show it must also holds for $n+1$ and therefore for all $ninmathcalN$.
Thus,
beginalign
sum_i=0^n+1ix^i&=underbracesum_i=0^nix^i_=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=A_n+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x(1-x)^2+(n+1)x^n+1frac(1-x)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac(nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1*(x-1)^2(1-x)^2\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl((nx-n-1)x^n+1+x+(n+1)x^n+1(1+x^2-2x)biggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^n+2((n+1)x-n-2)+xbiggr)\
&=frac1(1-x)^2biggl(x^(n+1)+1((n+1)x-(n+1)-1)+xbiggr)
endalign
So if it holds for any $n$ it must hold for $n+1$ too and therefore for all natural numbers. Now, you only have to check that it holds for $n=0$ or $n=1$ and you are done.
edited Mar 17 at 17:56
answered Mar 17 at 14:27
Gkhan CebsGkhan Cebs
813
813
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint: Think derivatives w.r.t. $b,$:
$$1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + dotsm + Nb^N=bsum_k=1^Nk,b^k-1=bBigl(sum_k=0^Nb^kBigr)^!!'$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint: Think derivatives w.r.t. $b,$:
$$1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + dotsm + Nb^N=bsum_k=1^Nk,b^k-1=bBigl(sum_k=0^Nb^kBigr)^!!'$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hint: Think derivatives w.r.t. $b,$:
$$1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + dotsm + Nb^N=bsum_k=1^Nk,b^k-1=bBigl(sum_k=0^Nb^kBigr)^!!'$$
$endgroup$
Hint: Think derivatives w.r.t. $b,$:
$$1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + dotsm + Nb^N=bsum_k=1^Nk,b^k-1=bBigl(sum_k=0^Nb^kBigr)^!!'$$
edited Mar 18 at 0:44
answered Mar 17 at 14:06
BernardBernard
124k742117
124k742117
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Start with $$S=1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + cdots + Nb^N$$
Multiply by $b$ and then subtract to give
$$bS=b + b^2 + 2b^3 + 3b^4 + cdots +(N-1)b^N + Nb^N+1$$
$$(b-1)S = -1 - b^2 - b^3 - b^4 - cdots -b^N + Nb^N+1$$
Do that again
$$b(b-1)S = -b - b^3 - b^4 - b^5 - cdots -b^N-b^N+1 - Nb^N+2$$
$$(b-1)^2S = 1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2$$
Finally simplify
$$S = dfrac1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2(b-1)^2.$$
As an example, with $b=2$ and $N=3$ the first line gives $S=1+2+8+24=35$ while the final line gives $S=frac1-2+4-64+961^2= 35$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Start with $$S=1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + cdots + Nb^N$$
Multiply by $b$ and then subtract to give
$$bS=b + b^2 + 2b^3 + 3b^4 + cdots +(N-1)b^N + Nb^N+1$$
$$(b-1)S = -1 - b^2 - b^3 - b^4 - cdots -b^N + Nb^N+1$$
Do that again
$$b(b-1)S = -b - b^3 - b^4 - b^5 - cdots -b^N-b^N+1 - Nb^N+2$$
$$(b-1)^2S = 1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2$$
Finally simplify
$$S = dfrac1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2(b-1)^2.$$
As an example, with $b=2$ and $N=3$ the first line gives $S=1+2+8+24=35$ while the final line gives $S=frac1-2+4-64+961^2= 35$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Start with $$S=1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + cdots + Nb^N$$
Multiply by $b$ and then subtract to give
$$bS=b + b^2 + 2b^3 + 3b^4 + cdots +(N-1)b^N + Nb^N+1$$
$$(b-1)S = -1 - b^2 - b^3 - b^4 - cdots -b^N + Nb^N+1$$
Do that again
$$b(b-1)S = -b - b^3 - b^4 - b^5 - cdots -b^N-b^N+1 - Nb^N+2$$
$$(b-1)^2S = 1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2$$
Finally simplify
$$S = dfrac1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2(b-1)^2.$$
As an example, with $b=2$ and $N=3$ the first line gives $S=1+2+8+24=35$ while the final line gives $S=frac1-2+4-64+961^2= 35$
$endgroup$
Start with $$S=1 + b + 2b^2 + 3b^3 + cdots + Nb^N$$
Multiply by $b$ and then subtract to give
$$bS=b + b^2 + 2b^3 + 3b^4 + cdots +(N-1)b^N + Nb^N+1$$
$$(b-1)S = -1 - b^2 - b^3 - b^4 - cdots -b^N + Nb^N+1$$
Do that again
$$b(b-1)S = -b - b^3 - b^4 - b^5 - cdots -b^N-b^N+1 - Nb^N+2$$
$$(b-1)^2S = 1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2$$
Finally simplify
$$S = dfrac1-b +b^2 -(N+1)b^N+1 + Nb^N+2(b-1)^2.$$
As an example, with $b=2$ and $N=3$ the first line gives $S=1+2+8+24=35$ while the final line gives $S=frac1-2+4-64+961^2= 35$
answered Mar 17 at 18:04
HenryHenry
101k482170
101k482170
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
$begingroup$
Thank you for the understandable explanation!
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 18:32
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
The ratio of successive terms is not constant, so this is not a geometric sequence, though it may be related to one
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 13:54
$begingroup$
Thank you @J.W.Tanner, I will edit the question
$endgroup$
– Joon
Mar 17 at 13:59
1
$begingroup$
Ok; by the way, I think we meant series (sum) rather than sequence
$endgroup$
– J. W. Tanner
Mar 17 at 14:02
2
$begingroup$
This page could be helpful: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2782812/finite-sum-kxk. Or you can let $S = x + 2x^2 + 3x^3 + cdots +nx^n$, and consider $S - xS$, and make sure you know the geometric series formula.
$endgroup$
– Minus One-Twelfth
Mar 17 at 14:06