Mathematics desk
< August 21	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 22

Simplify a sum involving binomial coefficients

Perhaps the sum $\sum _{i=n}^{m}{\frac {\binom {i}{n}}{2^{i}}}$ (where 0≤n≤m) can be simplified. Please tell me! The result would be very useful. (See here). Bo Jacoby (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's a special value of the hypergeometric function. I get

2-{\binom {m+1}{n}}2^{-1-m}{}_{2}F_{1}(1,m+2;m-n+2;1/2).

There are various identities one can try to play with. This is also equal to

2-{\binom {m+1}{n}}2^{-m}{}_{2}F_{1}(1,-n;m-n+2;-1).

I can't find an easy closed form, though. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sławomir ! This will eventually help me speeding up my program for large values of n and m. Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I can see it's very similar to the Binomial Theorem (bottom formula) with

{{{1}}}

2^-1}}, except that the binomial coefficient is upside-down. That might be a dead-end, but one could consider wandering through the proofs? SamuelRiv (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trajectories, gravity, acceleration, straightforward calculus

It's been too long since school when I last did any calculus. I was reading this article about the dangers of firing guns into the air earlier and it quotes a ballistics expert as saying bullets "go a long way up when they're fired". The question is, how high? If a bullet is accelerated by its firing to a speed of somewhere between 120 to 1700 ms⁻¹ (according to the muzzle velocity article) and gravity acts to decelerate it at 9.81 ms⁻², at what height does it stop going up? I believe this is a straightforward calculus problem, but I can't remember how to frame it! I can picture a graph of height against time as an inverse parabola intersecting the origin and a point on the x-axis corresponding to the time when it hits the ground (neglecting air resistance, because the bullet will reach terminal velocity on its way back down), and I know that I need the y value at the point of inflection, where the derivative (speed) is zero, but this is about as far as I get. Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, tehn we can think about it like this. If it starts at 120 to 1700m/s, and comes to instantaneous rest at the top, its average speed will be 60 to 850m/s. The time it spends doing this is the time it spends decelerating, or 120 to 1700 divided by 9.81 (assuming g is constant in both cases) which is between 12 and 173. So the total height reached is one value times the other, or 720 to 147,000m, which is quite a range if you did mean 120 to 1700m/s, I have no idea of muzzle velocity myself. Clearly this overly simplistic - 147km up is way more than the atmosphere, so clearly there's a problem modelling it like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic approach: figure out the time at which the vertical velocity reaches zero using $v_{0}=gt$ , then plug that time into $h=v_{0}t-1/2gt^{2}$ . Note that for a muzzle velocity of 1700 m/s (= Mach 5), air resistance will be huge and the formula will be miles off the mark. Looie496 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy conservation tells you that hg=v²/2. Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That would agree with my figures (thankfully) - however absurd they are. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think you can neglect air resistance at any point in the bullet's motion - I think drag will be a significant force on the bullet at all points in its trajectory. There is some discussion of this in our external ballistics article; the bottom line seems to be that mathematical modelling of drag on bullets is complicated. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a Formula Given Points: Step-Like Function

I've got a series of points: for x of 1-4, y is 0. For x of 5-13 (9 points), y is 1. For x of 14-23 (10 points), y is 2. For x of 24-32 (9 points), y is 3. For x of 33-41 (9 points), y is 4. For x of 42-50 (9 points), y is 5. All further steps are 9 points wide. How would I go about making a formula that matches these points? ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 20:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify where this problem comes from? If it is a homework problem we won't do it, although we may be able to offer suggestions for how to approach it. Looie496 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a diet program. Carbs are worth points, in the amounts listed above. Instead of using a lookup table, I want to have an automated widget on my desktop/homepage that can give me results. And programming the lookup table directly is . . . inelegant. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 11:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See lagrange interpolation and trigonometric interpolation. Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A "formula" is not the right tool for describing such a function (though you could get a decent fit with enough trigonometric terms). What's wrong with using a piecewise definition? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more specific - I'm not necessarily looking for a formula like y=5x. I'm looking for something I might plug into a spreadsheet or webpage or program to automate the calculation. So something like round(x/5+int(x/10)) or whatever would be just fine. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 11:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using Iverson brackets: f(x)=[5≤x]+[14≤x]+[24≤x]+[33≤x]+[42≤x]. Bo Jacoby (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The points you've described are almost described by simply rounding x/9 to the nearest integer, except that x-values of 23 and above should have 1 subtracted from them first, before the division (because of that one interval of width 10). The formula round(x/9) will give you the right value most of the time. To accommodate that one strange interval, either put in a line of code beforehand that subtracts 1 from x if x is greater than or equal to 23, or try something like round((x-(x>=23))/9), which will work if the >= operator yields 1 for true and 0 for false. In Excel the formula =ROUND((x-(x>=23))/9,0) will work. —Bkell (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bkell, that worked great. As it turned out, I found another source that stated the ratio as 19/175 - which is pretty close to 1/9, but accounts for the discrepancy at 23. Thanks again. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 22:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So if the ratio is really 19/175, then it's not quite true that "all further steps are 9 points wide"—there is another width-10 interval somewhere down the road, and another one after that eventually, and so on. —Bkell (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivation of Poiseuille's Law

Hello. I read the derivation of Poiseuille's law here. I would like to know the steps immediately prior to rearranging ${\frac {1}{\eta }}{\frac {\Delta P}{\Delta x}}={\frac {d^{2}v}{dr^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{r}}{\frac {dv}{dr}}$ by using the chain rule to ${\frac {1}{\eta }}{\frac {\Delta P}{\Delta x}}={\frac {1}{r}}{\frac {d}{dr}}r{\frac {dv}{dr}}$ . Links to the calculus techniques involved would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the product rule we have

{\frac {1}{r}}{\frac {d}{dr}}\left[r{\frac {dv}{dr}}\right]={\frac {1}{r}}\left[r\left({\frac {dv}{dr}}\right)'+(r)'{\frac {dv}{dr}}\right]={\frac {1}{r}}\left[r{\frac {d^{2}v}{dr^{2}}}+{\frac {dv}{dr}}\right]={\frac {d^{2}v}{dr^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{r}}{\frac {dv}{dr}}.

Not sure where the chain rule comes in. I'm also assuming the position of the square brackets on the left-hand side; the notation in the article is a little ambiguous in my eyes. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the product rule come to mind without knowing the next step? --Mayfare (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I noticed we're considering the derivative of a product of two functions f and g, where f(r) = r and g(r) = dv/dr. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]