this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
667 points (97.2% liked)

Science Memes

20558 readers
633 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If you're wondering how you get the proof for finding Sn, that's something that I think is very difficult to cover in a small internet comment. You really need some good pencil and paper to illustrate how it works.

But in a nutshell, you can list down all the terms:

Sn = a, ar, ar^2, ... , ar^(n-2), ar^(n-1)

Then, you write down rSn (common ratio multiplied by Sn), so you get:

rSn = ar, ar^2, a^3, ... , ar^(n-1), ar^n

Then you subtract rSn from Sn, and you can see that a lot of it cancels out [ ar, ar^2, ... , ar^(n-1) ]

It's a little hard to show in text form, but it makes more sense once you write it down. This leaves you with this:

Sn - rSn = a - ar^n

Sn(1 - r) = a(1 - r^n)

Then you divide by (1 - r) to get a simplified expression for Sn!

Sn = a(1 - r^n) / (1 - r)

And for the other equation (where absolute value of r > 1), you instead subtract Sn from rSn, then divide by (r - 1) instead of (1 - r). It's the same logic though.