10

How to prove that $$1^2+2^2+...+n^2=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}$$ without using induction.

If we don't know the right side of this expression, how to get right expression. I tried with partial sums and binomial formula but can't get it.

So the problem is: $$1^2+2^2+...+n^2=?$$

Thanks for replies.

user300045
  • 3,449
  • I wrote up this answer to a question asking for $\sum r^n$. (S/he didn't like the usual method.) The question had closed several seconds before I tried to post it, though, so I took a screenshot of it and put it in the comments. In any case, to apply it to your question, try $n^3$ as your first guess. – Akiva Weinberger May 08 '15 at 22:19

6 Answers6

10

With linear algebra:

You can do it with linear algebra, by noticing that the map $\Sigma$ which maps a sequence $u_n$ to the sequence $u_0 + \dots + u_n$ has, as a left inverse, the map $\Delta$, mapping the sequence $u_n$ to the sequence $u_n - u_{n-1}$; since, for any sequence $u_n = f(n)$ where $f$ is a polynomial of degree $d$, $\Delta u$ is polynomial of degree $d-1$, we see that $\Sigma$ maps polynomials of degree $d$ to polynomials of degree $d+1$, and we can find which ones by linear algebra.

With combinatorics:

An even simpler way is to use the standard basis $e_d$ where $e_d$ is the sequence $e_{d,n} = \binom{n+d}{d}$, for then we have $$(\Delta e_d)_n = e_{d,n} - e_{d,n-1} = \binom{n+d}{d} - \binom{n+d-1}{d} = \binom{n+d-1}{d-1} = (e_{d-1})_{n}.$$ Then we only need to write $n^2$ as a linear combination of $e_{0,n} = 1$, $e_{1,n} = n$ and $e_{2,n} = n(n-1)/2$.

With integrals:

A third way is to use integrals: namely, with simple linear algebra we find that $$ n^2 = \int_{n-1}^{n} (x^2+x+1/6) dx,$$ so that $$ 0+1+\dots+n^2 = \int_0^{n} (x^2+x+1/6) dx = \frac{1}{6} (2n^3+3n^2+n).$$

With geometry:

A fourth way is the usual geometric proof, where you can tile together six pyramids in a parallelepiped.

Circonflexe
  • 1,808
9

Evaluate the telescoping sum

$$\sum_{k=1}^n k^3-(k-1)^3=n^3$$

But $k^3-(k-1)^3=3k^2-3k-1$. Thus,

$$\sum_{k=1}^n k^3-(k-1)^3=n^3=\sum_{k=1}^n (3k^2-3k-1)$$

Isolate the sum over $k^2$ and use the result of the sum of an arithmetic sum and you will have it!

This methodology, using a telescoping sum, works for higher powers. So, it can be used to find the sum of $k^m$ for any integer $m$.

Mark Viola
  • 179,405
  • And $\sum_{k=1}^n k$ can be computed in a similar way from $k^2-(k^2-1)$. On the other hand, this implicitly uses induction. – egreg May 08 '15 at 21:25
  • @egreg Indeed. And this methodology can be used to provide a way forward to sum $k^m$ as I confident that you know, – Mark Viola May 08 '15 at 21:39
5

Assume we know $\sum\limits_{k=1}^nk=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$. Compute the following cubes

$$\begin{align} 1^3&=1\\ (1+1)^3&=1^3+3\cdot 1^2+3\cdot 1+1^3\\ \vdots&=\vdots\\ n^3&=(n-1)^3+3(n-1)^2+3(n-1)+1^3\\ (n+1)^3&=n^3+3n^2+3n+1^3\end {align}$$

Add these equations together and cancel the cubes you have on both sides you get

$$\begin{align}(n+1)^3&=1+3\sum_{k=1}^nk^2+3\sum_{k=1}^nk+n\\ &=(n+1)\frac{3n+2}{2}+3\sum_{k=1}^nk^2\end{align}$$

This yields

$$\sum_{k=1}^nk^2=\frac{n+1}{3}\left(n^2+2n+1-\frac{3n+2}{2}\right)=\frac{(n+1)(2n^2+n)}{6}$$

Factoring $n$ we get the result expected

marwalix
  • 16,773
4

$\sum_ 1^{n+1}k^2=\sum_ 0^{n}(k+1)^2=\sum _0^{n}[k^2+2k+1]=\sum_1^nk^2+2\cdot \sum _1^nk + (n+1)$ which gives $(n+1)^2=2\cdot \sum_1^n k + (n+1)$ from which you deduce that $\sum_1^nk=\frac {(n+1)^2-(n+1)}{2}=\frac{(n+1)n}{2}$, the familiar formula. Now you can do the same but start with $\sum_1^{n+1}k^3=\sum_0^n(k+1)^3=\cdots $ and with a bit more work but essentially the same kind of algebra, and using the formula for $\sum_1^nk $ which was just derived you discover the formula without guessing. This will work for any specified power. It should be noted though that this still uses induction, hidden in the manipulation of sums.

Ittay Weiss
  • 79,840
  • 7
  • 141
  • 236
3

Seven or eight ways to do this are presented in Concrete Mathematics by Knuth et. al. The most elementary is this:

Let $S_r(n) = \sum_{k=0}^n x^r$; we are trying to find a closed form for $S_2(n)$.

Pretend we were trying to find $S_3(n)$:

$$ S_3(n) + (n+1)^3 = S_3(n+1) = \sum_{k=0}^n (k+1)^3 = \sum_{k=0}^n (j^3+3k^2+3k+1) \\ = \sum_{k=0}^n k^3 + 3\sum_{k=0}^n k^2 + 3 \sum_{k=0}^n k + \sum_{k=0}^n 1 = S_3(n) + 3S_2(n) + 3 \frac{n(n+1)}{2} + n $$ The $S_3(n)$ terms drop out (which would be harsh if we were really trying to find $S_3(n)$ ) and we get $$ 3S_2(n) = (n+1)^3 - 3\frac{n(n+1)}{2} - n $$ from which easy algebra gives you your closed form for $S_2(n)$.

Mark Fischler
  • 41,743
-2

Any statement on natural numbers can be proved only using induction. It is possible that the induction is hidden in the argument. So this question doesn't make sense.

Adhvaitha
  • 20,259
  • This depends on which set of axioms you are using for natural numbers. You may use something larger than Peano, which contains for example the usual properties of addition of multiplication. This actually makes more sense for usual “customers” of natural numbers. – Circonflexe May 08 '15 at 21:48
  • @Circonflexe I am unaware of a set of axioms where induction becomes redundant. Could you explain or give a pointer? – Adhvaitha May 08 '15 at 21:53
  • I am not saying that induction becomes redundant, but that there are some theorems where it is not needed. Trivial example is if you put in commutativity of multiplication and one-side distributivity, then other-side distributivity is a direct consequence. My point being: when proving things about integers, not everybody brings it down to Peano arithmetic every time (even though I agree that in the end it is induction anyway, this would be a pessimistic statement about the variety of mathematics!) – Circonflexe May 08 '15 at 21:56
  • Even if you work only in PA with the traditional set of axioms, just take as a theorem one of the axioms that isn't induction. Clearly the proof is one line (i.e. the axiom) and doesn't involve induction at all, so what you say is not at all accurate. – Hayden May 08 '15 at 23:20