Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**Eulero****Member**- Registered: 2016-09-14
- Posts: 9

Hi,

I haven't been here for a while, but now i'm back with something new. I found a formula that give the result of the partial sum of the series:

For each k positive integer. With recursion i mean: do you want the partial sum formula for n=3? You need to know the partial sum formula for n=2 and for that you need partial sum formula for n=1;etc.

This is the formula:

It works perfectly!

Before I publish the proof i really would like your judge:is it a useful formula? Or it's less interesting than i think?

I thank you for every answer.

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,606

Hi;

That does indeed work for what I have tested but there is already a simple closed form for the first sum.

Does your solution have something special that makes it better for something? If so, what?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

Offline

**Eulero****Member**- Registered: 2016-09-14
- Posts: 9

Well, I never saw the question by this perspective. I think that my formula is simpler because doesn't need the knowledge of bernoulli numbers that are really hard to remember. And if k gets really high my formula is long because of the recursion but still practicable: i challenge everyone at remembering for a long time a big part of Bernoulli sequence. So should i post the proof or it's a naive work?

*Last edited by Eulero (2017-01-09 23:07:38)*

Offline

**bobbym****bumpkin**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 109,606

Hi;

I would say go ahead and give it a shot. Where do you intend to publish?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.****If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.**** Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.**

Offline

**Eulero****Member**- Registered: 2016-09-14
- Posts: 9

I think that i used the wrong word (I'm italian), with publish i mean post here. However this is my proof:

Knowing that:

(excuse me the under subscript is 0)

We can rewrite the series so:

Now i notice that delta_n appears m-n times in the series:

We must work a little more for our formula:

QED

Offline

**iamaditya****Member**- From: Planet Mars
- Registered: 2016-11-15
- Posts: 659

Hi, Eulero

The formula is too complicated to remember. It can be remembered much more easily by Implementing Faulhaber's formula. It says,

1ˣ +2ˣ +3ˣ +4ˣ ......nˣ =[1/(1+x)](aB₀nˣ⁺¹+bB₁nˣ+cB₂nˣ⁻¹............yBₓn), where Bₙ is the nth Bernoulli no. and a,b,c,.....y are the consecutive terms of (x+1)th row of Pascal's Triangle.

For e.g.

1¹¹+2¹¹+3¹¹+4¹¹.....7¹¹=(1/12)(1B₀n¹²+12B₁n¹¹+66B₂n¹⁰+220B₃n⁹+495B₄n⁸+792B₅n⁷+924B₆n⁶+792B₇n⁵+495B₈n⁴+220B₉n³+66B₁₀n²+12B₁₁n)

(1+B)ⁿ⁺¹-Bₙ₊₁=0

For e.g.

for,B₁ n=1 so

(1+B)²-B₂=0

⇒1+B₂+2B-B₂=0

⇒1=2B=0

⇒B=-0.5

However in this ( the formula for sums of powers )formula B₂=+0.5

*Last edited by iamaditya (2017-01-10 01:41:52)*

Practice makes a man perfect.

There is no substitute to hard work

All of us do not have equal talents but everybody has equal oppurtunities to build their talents.-APJ Abdul Kalam

Offline