7

Why is it that sums like $\displaystyle\sum\limits^\infty_{n=1} \frac{n^k}{3^n}$ and $\displaystyle\sum\limits^\infty_{n=1} \frac{n^k}{2^n}$ where $k$ is a non-negative integer, sum to 'nice' numbers like 0.75, 1.5, 2, 4.125, 6, 15, 26 and 150 while sums like $\displaystyle\sum\limits^\infty_{n=1} \frac{n^k}{4^n}$ and $\displaystyle\sum\limits^\infty_{n=1} \frac{n^k}{7^n}$ don't?
More generally, how can one tell what a sum of the form $\displaystyle\sum\limits^\infty_{n=1} \frac{n^k}{m^n}$ sums to?

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulerian_number – Angina Seng Apr 02 '18 at 14:06
  • One small note is that by a lot of mathematical standards, all of the results in these cases are 'nice'; the results are always rational, for instance, and there are relatively clean formulae for them. The differences you're seeing are more a result of your decimal brain than anything else... – Steven Stadnicki May 13 '20 at 17:42

2 Answers2

6

The nice identity related to such sums is $$ \sum_{n\ge 0} \binom{n+k}{k} x^k = \frac1{(1-x)^{k+1}}. $$ You can prove this by induction, or by generating functions, or by the generalized binomial theorem.

The values of your sums aren't going to be as nice, but we can express any monomial $n^k$ as a linear combination of $\binom n0, \binom{n+1}{1}, \dots, \binom{n+k}{k}$ because these are a basis for polynomials of degree up to $k$. As a result, we know that $$ \sum_{n \ge 0} n^k x^k = \frac{a_0}{1-x} + \frac{a_1}{(1-x)^2} + \dots + \frac{a_k}{(1-x)^{k+1}} $$ for some coefficients $a_0, \dots, a_k$, which we can put over a common denominator of $(1-x)^{k+1}$.

In your case, the denominator for $x = \frac12$ simplifies to a factor of $2^{k+1}$, the denominator for $x = \frac13$ simplifies to a factor of $(\frac32)^{k+1}$, and they get progressively worse from there.

Misha Lavrov
  • 142,276
2

Another way. Note that $$ n^k=\sum_{m=0}^kS(k,m)n^{\underline{m}} $$ where $S(k,m)$ is the stirling number of the second kind and $n^{\underline{m}}=n(n-1)\dotsb(n-m+1)$ is the falling factorial of length $m$. In effect we have simply changed bases to the more convenient basis of falling factorials which are a basis for polynomials of degree at most $k$. Now $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty n^k x^n=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{m=0}^kS(k,m)n^{\underline{m}}\right)x^n =\sum_{m=0}^kS(k,m)\left(\sum_{n=0}^\infty n^{\underline{m}}x^n \right)\quad (|x|<1)\tag{1} $$ But it is easy to get the generating function of $n^{\underline{m}}$ by differentiation of the geometric series. Indeed, $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty n^{\underline{m}}x^n=x^m\left[\frac{d^m}{dx^m}(1-x)^{-1}\right]=\frac{m!x^m}{(1-x)^{m+1}}\quad (|x|<1) $$ whence $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty n^k x^n=\sum_{m=0}^k \left[m!S(k,m)\frac{x^m}{(1-x)^{m+1}}\right].\quad(|x|<1). $$ For example put $x=1/2$ to get that $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty n^k 2^{-n}= 2\sum_{m=0}^k m!S(k,m). $$ and put $x=1/3$ to get that $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty n^k 3^{-n}= 3\sum_{m=0}^k m!S(k,m)\frac{1}{2^{m+1}}. $$ and in general put $x=1/r$ where $|x|<1$, to get that $$ \sum_{n=0}^\infty n^k r^{-n}=r\sum_{m=0}^km!S(k,m)\frac{1}{(r-1)^{m+1}}. $$

  • If I'm being honest, it will take me at least a few hours of reading before I can even begin to understand what you've done there, but +1 'cos it looks cool :) – DividedByZero Apr 03 '18 at 16:55