4
$\begingroup$

I'm reading my vector calculus text when I encountered below formula.
$(\sum\limits_{i=1}^n{x_{i}})^2=(\sum\limits_{i=1}^n{x_{i}^2}+\sum\limits_{i
Is this a definition or there's a proof for above?

  • 2
    Think of $(x_1+x_2)^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+2x_1 x_2$2012-07-29
  • 0
    i did try that but the missing $x_{2}^2$ baffled me2012-07-29
  • 1
    The previous identity could be written $$(\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i)^2=\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i^2 + \sum_{i and for $n=3$ you have $$(x_1+x_2+x_3)^2=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+2x_1 x_2 + 2x_1 x_3+2x_2 x_3,$$ that can be written as $$(\sum_{i=1}^3 x_i)^2=\sum_{i=1}^3 x_i^2 + \sum_{i2012-07-29
  • 0
    ah yes, of course...earlier i took it literally as squaring the series itself to get the answer.Unfortunately I cannot choose your comment as answer to close this question since yours is the closest.2012-07-29

3 Answers 3

6

Consider the array

$$\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \color{red}{x_1^2} & \color{green}{x_1x_2} & \color{blue}{x_1x_3} & x_1x_4&&& \ldots &x_1x_n \\ \color{green}{x_1 x_2} & \color{red}{x_2^2} & x_2x_3 & x_2x_4 &&&\ldots & x_2x_n \\ \color{blue}{x_1x_3} & x_2x_3 & \color{red}{x_3^2} & x_3x_4 &&&\ldots & x_3x_n \\ x_1x_4 & x_2x_4 & x_3x_4 & \color{red}{x_4^2} & x_4x_5 &&\ldots & x_4x_n \\ &&&\vdots & \color{red}{\ddots} \\ &&&\vdots \\ &&&\vdots \\ x_1x_n & x_2x_n & \ldots &&&&\ldots & \color{red}{x_n^2}\end{array}\right].$$

This is the array consisting of all terms in the expansion of $(x_1+\ldots + x_n)^2$. Notice that the array is symmetric about the diagonal. So therefore we just need to notice that

$$\begin{eqnarray*} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i\right)^2 = (x_1 + \ldots+ x_n)^2 &=& \text{(sum of all terms along the diagonal)} \\ && \hspace{16mm}+ \text{($\color{red}{twice}$ the sum of all terms above the diagonal)}\\ &=& \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 + 2\sum_{i < j} x_ix_j.\end{eqnarray*}$$

$\hspace{6in} \square$

  • 1
    That's what I meant by *seeing* why it's true, but I was too lazy to typeset it :)2012-07-29
  • 0
    @Jbeuh C'était pas trop dificile....2012-07-29
3

It's easily proved by induction using $(x_1+x_2)^2=x_1^2+2x_1x_2+x_2^2$ as the base case but it's actually more useful to "see" why it's true (replace the $\Sigma$'s with dots if it helps).

  • 0
    how about the missing $x_{2}^2$ ?I'm not sure what to made of it2012-07-29
  • 0
    I'm not sure what you mean. $$\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} x_i\right)^2 = \left(\left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \right)+x_{n+1}\right)^2 = \left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i \right)^2 + 2x_{n+1}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i + x_{n+1}^2 = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 + 2\sum_{1\leq i2012-07-29
  • 0
    It's even easier to use $n=1$ as the base case (in this case $\{i is empty).2012-07-29
  • 0
    @Jbeuh turns out I took squaring of equation too literally and apply it to series.2012-07-29
  • 0
    @wildildildlife It's easier, but in my experience base cases which are vacuously true tend to confuse (first year) students.2012-07-29
1

You can use multinomial theorem.