Power sums with Calculus.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2023
- 🌟Support the channel🌟
Patreon: / michaelpennmath
Channel Membership: / @michaelpennmath
Merch: teespring.com/stores/michael-...
My amazon shop: www.amazon.com/shop/michaelpenn
🟢 Discord: / discord
🌟my other channels🌟
mathmajor: / @mathmajor
pennpav podcast: / @thepennpavpodcast7878
🌟My Links🌟
Personal Website: www.michael-penn.net
Instagram: / melp2718
Twitter: / michaelpennmath
Randolph College Math: www.randolphcollege.edu/mathem...
Research Gate profile: www.researchgate.net/profile/...
Google Scholar profile: scholar.google.com/citations?...
🌟How I make Thumbnails🌟
Canva: partner.canva.com/c/3036853/6...
Color Pallet: coolors.co/?ref=61d217df7d705...
🌟Suggest a problem🌟
forms.gle/ea7Pw7HcKePGB4my5
If instead of a sum of exponentials, we use an alternating sum of inverse exponentials (whose geometric sum converges then) we could evaluate the Dirichlet Eta function in negative integers as derivatives of it, and we could then get the zeta function at negative integers using the formulas.
Also, does this make it easier to get the general formula? It seems like you can get the Bernoulli numbers off it but I can't just find out how.
WOW!! Thank you so much! I am sooo happy now! 😄😄
This the first time I have seen such a development. Bloody marvelous! It's hard to express in words, but one can only be struck by a sense of "wonder" or "awe" that when you "follow the math" correctly, it often leads you a known result from a seemingly unrelated and oblique direction. But in the end, what this really demonstrates is that mathematics (calculus included) is all connected in such a basic fundamental way so that final result naturally emerges from the chaos. Very cool.
It's the same sense of "awe" I got when I applied 1) Newton's Second Law 2) The Universal Law of Gravitation 3) Radial Force and 4) Calculus and out pops (almost magically) Conservation of Angular Momentum and Energy, Kepler's 2nd Law and finally the orbital path being a conic section. Thanks Michael.
"But in the end, what this really demonstrates is that mathematics (calculus included) is all connected in such a basic fundamental way so that final result naturally emerges from the chaos".
This statement actually makes no sense.
@@samueldeandrade8535 I was trying to say that you can start with a set of true and well known results, apply the mathematics correctly (sometimes blindly), and be lead to an unexpected or new result or a known result but in an unexpected and seemingly unrelated way.
@@ianfowler9340 well, ok. But what you said was too much. You made an invalid generalization. Your talking is very imprecise. Look, "apply the mathematics ... (sometimes blindly) and be lead to an unexpected or new result". What evidence you have for that case? And what, more precisely, do you mean by "applying math blindly"?
Man, be mathematical. Mean a lot by saying little. You are doing kinda the opposite.
@@samueldeandrade8535the video is an example of that.... we don't know where we're going with the derivativesof the closed expression. That statement is definitely correct.
@@letis2madeo995 man, let the guy talk. You are just adding more wrong statements. "the video is an example of that...." Of "that" what? "We don't know where we're going with the derivatives of the closed expression"? Wtf do you mean? What you want to know? What do you think you should know? We defined a function, we realised its derivatives at 0 are the sums of power, we calculate its derivatives by some other expression, we obtain a formula that must equal the other one. What else do you need to know? "That statement is definitely correct". What statement? You are not mathematical too.
Huh, this is a really neat trick I never seen or thought of!
These sums can be calculated with generating function but we have to express n^k in Newton's divided difference polynomial form
it is fantastic!
Why could you compare the coefficients of x^k in the sums in the end? After re-indexing, both sums had x^k, but they still started at different points (0 and -1). What did the reindexing get you, then? Without reindexing you could have done the same. You compared the coefficients of "x^0" with the ones from "x^-1" (and so on). Why was this allowed?
No, he compared the coefficients of x^0 with the ones from x^0 and so on.
But nevertheless, you have a point. I think the formula given at 13:40 is slightly wrong: The sum probably should start at k = 1, not at k = 0. Because otherwise that sum would start with 1/x, i. e. it would diverge for x going to zero, which obviously contradicts fn(0) = n.
Cute observation!
I really loved this video, but where the Bernoulli Numbers came from ? is there any simple explanation for the idea and derivation behind ?
Gee Mike .. Thank you for a brilliant video. I watched a Mathologer video about power sums, but yours is better. I will watch this video a few times because the result is so nicely developed. I'd like to see more about Bernoulli numbers and Bernoulli polynomials.
Is it true to say that the sum of (e^x)^n is the same as the sum of a geometric sequence because here e^x isn't a constant ?!
Fantastic but i had already lerant it by Bernoulli thearom
17:18
Here's an interesting summation problem I've been working on for a while: Given a positive integer p, what is the polynomial over indeterminate x given by the sum of k^p from k=1 to k=x? Is there a general formula for the coefficients of that polynomial?
I've found some patterns. Let Q(p,i) be defined such that the sum of k^p from k=1 to k=x is equal to the sum of Q(p,i)x^i from i=0 to i=x+1. I've found that Q(p,i)=1/2 for p=i, that Q(p,i)=1/i for p+1=i, and a few other patterns, but I haven't found a formula.
Is x an integer also or any real number?
And "polynomial over" indeter.inate x is such bizarre unclear language wouldn't yiu agree..why don't mathematicians use more intelligible terminology?
the triangular number formula doesnt really need induction - just reorder the sum 1 + n + 2 + (n-1) + 3 + (n-2) + .... all the pairs add to n+1, so there's floor(n/2) * (n+1) + . just consider the odd/even cases for a direct proof.
Hallo Gauss? Nice to see you again after 250 years!
Impressive. You manage do say the obvious, avoiding the simplest way to do it. Man, bring this guy a Fields Medal.
@ 14:35 Should be the kth derivative of f_n evaluated at 0.
I assume B_0(n)=0?
No, it isn't, it's 1. I am confused, the expressions doesn't equate at all. I think that, simply, the term for k = -1 have not to appear.
Actually, it's B_0(n) = 1, as one could look up, or calculate from the formula given at the end.
I think the sum given at 13:40 is slightly wrong, probably it should start at k = 1, not at k = 0.
Desr.GOD didn't everyone else think he would just take the derivative of the expression and get k(1)^k-1) plus..k(n)^k-1) tomsolve this..WHY IS E THE NATURAL NHMBER HERE AT ALL..? Not clear.. Surely everyone else was wondering this??
Wouldn't you want a closed form to be easier to calculate than the thing you started with? It kinda looks like we started from the closed form and got to something much more complex lol
Enkuwan calculus tewegnna medemer meqenesum azaye new wedaje m8naqejaberegn midre tequway ytenquwy follower hula atMetam mariamullahudan