Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We have the well-known formula

$$\frac{n (n + 1) (2 n + 1)}{6} = 1^2 + 2^2 + \cdots + n^2 .$$

If the difference between the closest numbers is smaller, we obtain, for example

$$\frac{n \times (n + 0.1) (2 n + 0.1) }{6 \cdot 0.1} = 0.1^2 + 0.2^2 + \cdots + n^2 .$$

It is easy to check. Now if the difference between the closest numbers becomes smallest possible, we will obtain

$$ \frac{n \cdot (n + 0.0..1) \cdot (2 n + 0.0..1)}{6 \cdot 0.0..1} = 0.0..1^2 + 0.0..2^2 + \cdots + n^2$$

So can conclude that

$$\frac{2n ^ 3}{6} = \frac{n ^ 3}{3} = \frac{0.0..1 ^ 2 + 0.0..2 ^ 2 + \cdots + n ^ 2}{0.0..1}.$$

Is this conclusion correct?

share|improve this question
2  
We call the last expression the integral of $n^2$ –  EuYu Dec 19 '11 at 4:14
    
On the RHS of your last equation you should have multiplied by your small number rather than divided. –  AMPerrine Dec 19 '11 at 4:21
    
I don't understand the 2nd formula. Take $n=1$; are you claiming $(1)(1.1)(2.1)/(.6)=(.1)^2+(.2)^2+\cdots+1^2$? Is that true? –  Gerry Myerson Dec 19 '11 at 4:39
1  
@Gerry Myerson it turns out is. ${1\times 1.1\times 2.1\over0.6}=3.85$ and so is $0.1^2+0.2^2.....1^2$ –  E.O. Dec 19 '11 at 5:01

1 Answer 1

Suppose we want to calculate the sum of squares with successive differences $\epsilon$ from $0$ to some fixed $n$ (we require $\frac{n}{\epsilon}\in\mathbb{N}$ for this particular calculation, however for the general formulation of integrals and Riemann sums, this is not required), that is

$$S_\epsilon = \sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n}{\epsilon}}(i\epsilon)^2$$

letting $m = \frac{n}{\epsilon}$ this sum is equivalent to

$$\sum_{i=0}^{m}i^{2}\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)^2$$

which we can write as

$$=\left(\frac{n^2}{m^2}\right)\sum_{i=0}^{m}i^2=\left(\frac{n^2}{m^2}\right)\frac{m(m+1)(2m+1)}{6} $$

$$= \frac{\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)m\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)(m+1)\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)(2m+1)}{6\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)}=\frac{n(n+\epsilon)(2n+\epsilon)}{6\epsilon}$$

taking the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ this is equivalent to $m\rightarrow\infty$ and $S_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}$ is easily seem to be divergent to $+\infty$. However, $S_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\cdot \epsilon$ is convergent (which easily evaluated by simply substituting $\epsilon = 0$, which we can do by the continuity of the expression) and is of certain interest. In particular, we can write

$$S = S_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\cdot\epsilon=\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\ \sum_{i=0}^{m}\left(i\frac{n}{m}\right)^2\left(\frac{n}{m}\right)$$

we recognize this as the Riemann Sum which defines the integral

$$\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\ \sum_{i=0}^{m}\left[f\left(x_0 + i\frac{n}{m}\right)\frac{n}{m}\right]=\int_{x_0}^{x_0 + n}f(x)\ dx$$

for $f(x) = x^2$ and $x_0 = 0$. (In particular this is the left Riemann sum). By the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,

$$\int_{0}^{n}x^2\ dx = \frac{x^3}{3}\bigg|_{0}^{n} = \frac{n^3}{3}$$

which is exactly the quantity you cite.

share|improve this answer
    
But if the OP knew calculus they probably would not have asked the question. –  Bill Dubuque Dec 19 '11 at 5:21
    
@Bill True enough. However, he is likely to encounter the subject soon where this very problem might arise (I believe it is a common exercise when learning of Riemann sums) and so I write for future reference as well. This is why I laid out everything in a relatively fundamental manner. –  EuYu Dec 19 '11 at 5:25
    
+1. I would like to point out that the limit $\lim \limits_{\varepsilon \to 0} \epsilon \cdot S_{\varepsilon}$ is completely elementary, and does not require going through Riemann sums? In fact, all we need is to plug in $\varepsilon = 0$ in the expression for $\varepsilon \cdot S_{\varepsilon}$ (since that function is continuous). –  Srivatsan Dec 19 '11 at 5:50
    
@Srivatsan You are of course right. But since the prior calculations are exactly the ones for calculating the Riemann sum, it felt like a shame not to include it, especially when this question introduces the topic so well. –  EuYu Dec 19 '11 at 5:57
    
@EuYu I agree. I wrote my comment, thinking that it might be useful to point out the easier way, in addition to the connection to Riemann integrals. :) –  Srivatsan Dec 19 '11 at 6:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.