2
$\begingroup$

I know that

$$1^2+2^2+3^2+\cdots+n^2=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}$$

and I can prove it using the Principle of Mathematical Induction. Now, I am trying to gain a physical explanation of why it is true, but am having trouble.

I am assuming that such an understanding is valuable. If you think this is a waste of time, please let me know why you think so.

I tried to visualize the sum of squares using blocks and see it that would contain $\frac{1}{6}$ the number of blocks as a large cube of blocks with dimension $n\times(n+1)\times(2n+1)$. Using this method, I noticed that

$$1^2+2^2+3^2+\cdots+n^2=n\cdot1+(n-1)\cdot3+(n-2)\cdot5+\cdots+1\cdot(2n-1)$$

but that didn't help me understand the original equation.

  • 1
    Why is the induction proof insufficient to demonstrate why it is true?2012-11-28
  • 0
    Good point. I revised the question to say I am looking for a physical explanation of why it is true.2012-11-28
  • 1
    Look at the beautiful color slide in this presentation (I haven't looked at the references below to know if they are the same): http://math.berkeley.edu/~rbayer/09su-55/handouts/ProofByPicture.pdf2012-11-28
  • 0
    Also, see Theorem 7 - very nice here: www.ejpam.com/index.php/ejpam/article/download/546/962012-11-28

1 Answers 1

3

See my question here. In particular, follow the link to the pictures of wooden blocks.

  • 0
    Thanks! For future reference, here is how I found the picture: (1) Go to http://mathoverflow.net/questions/8846/proofs-without-words/8847#8847 (2) Search for "Man-Keung Siu"2012-11-28
  • 2
    @AndrewLiu I've seen that picture, but I prefer the one at http://ckrao.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/the-sum-of-consecutive-squares-formula/ because there is no halving, and six whole pieces are used rather than three with one of them shaved.2012-11-28