Is there a nice formula for the following function?

S(k,n)*x^kBut I didn't know how to calculate the coefficient of x^k. Now I know!In summary, the conversation discusses finding a formula for the function S(k,n), which is the sum of all possible products (permutations not allowed) of k distinct integers from the set of natural numbers from 1 to n. The trivial cases of S(1,n) and S(n,n) are discussed and the conversation touches on finding an explicit expression for S(k,n). The concept of the Stirling numbers of the first kind is brought up as a potential solution
  • #1
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,123
137
Hi there!
I am seeking a nice formula for the following function S(k,n), k and n natural numbers, k<=n, where S(k,n) is the sum of all possible products (permutations not allowed) of k distinct integers, where the integer set runs from 1 to n.
Thus, for example, we have the trivial cases of S(1,n)=n(n+1)/2 and S(n,n)=n!

Thanks in advance

EDIT:
I'm not really interested in an implicit recursive method (that's fairly trivial to set up), but an explicit expression of S
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
arildno said:
Hi there!
I am seeking a nice formula for the following function S(k,n), k and n natural numbers, k<=n, where S(k,n) is the sum of all possible products (permutations not allowed) of k distinct integers, where the integer set runs from 1 to n.
Thus, for example, we have the trivial cases of S(1,n)=n(n+1)/2 and S(n,n)=n!

Thanks in advance

In general I doubt you'll do better than
[tex]
S(k,n) = \sum_{\begin{array}{c}U \subset \{1, \dots, n\} \\ |U| = k\end{array}} \left(\prod_{u \in U} u \right)
[/tex]
 
  • #3
pasmith said:
In general I doubt you'll do better than
[tex]
S(k,n) = \sum_{\begin{array}{c}U \subset \{1, \dots, n\} \\ |U| = k\end{array}} \left(\prod_{u \in U} u \right)
[/tex]
Thanks!
I've thought of that as well, and it won't be any touble for me setting up a recursive scheme to calculate whatever value of S that I want.

I was hoping, though, that some mathematician had figured out a surprisingly simple formula..
 
  • #4
You can calculate S(2,n) (partial solution given here),

[tex] S(2,n) = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} j \sum_{r=j+1}^{n} r [/tex]
[tex] \sum_{r=j+1}^{n} r = (n+j)(n-j+1)/2 [/tex]

So
[tex] S(2,n) = \sum_{j=1}^{n-1} j(n+j)(n-j+1)/2 [/tex]

You can distribute it and get a sum over j, a sum over j2, and a sum over j3 all of which have known formulas. Trying to repeat this exact process (sum over j, sum over r > j, sum over s > r for S(3,n) for example) is doable but tedious. It might be able to be generalized to S(k,n) directly though with extreme cleverness
 
  • #5
Thank you, Office Shredder!
I did think of such schemes, but didn't want to go through the calculations (I do not trust myself in gleaning a general pattern here).
It would be easier, say computerwise, to set up a plodding algorithm, but I thought that a function S(k,n) OUGHT to occur in lots of combinatorics problems, for example, so that some mathematician had done some serious thinking upon S.
 
  • #6
Another explicit value will, obviously, be S(n-1,n), which must equal (n!)*H(n), where H(n) is the harmonic sum of the n first numbers (which DOES have a rather nice expression).
But, it is all those in-betweens I wonder about..:frown:
 
  • #7
If I understand you correctly, your ##S(k,n)## is the (unsigned) Stirling number of the first kind ##\left[n+1 \atop n + 1 - k\right]##. You should be able to find a lot of information about these numbers once you know that they are the Stirling numbers of the first kind.
 
  • #8
eigenperson said:
If I understand you correctly, your ##S(k,n)## is the (unsigned) Stirling number of the first kind ##\left[n+1 \atop n + 1 - k\right]##. You should be able to find a lot of information about these numbers once you know that they are the Stirling numbers of the first kind.
Hooray!
That seems to be the name of my beast!
Thanks a bundle!
 
  • #9
As a matter of fact, my conundrum arose from seeking to calculate the coefficients of the polynomial I now have learned the name of, "the falling factorial", x*(x-1)*(x-2)*...(x-n)
 

Related to Is there a nice formula for the following function?

1. What is the function being referred to?

The function being referred to is a mathematical or scientific formula that expresses a relationship between two or more variables.

2. Is the formula for a specific type of function?

The formula may be specific to a certain type of function, such as a quadratic, exponential, or trigonometric function, or it may be a general formula that can be applied to a variety of functions.

3. Can the formula be used to solve real-world problems?

Yes, many mathematical and scientific formulas have practical applications and can be used to solve real-world problems in fields such as engineering, physics, and economics.

4. Can the formula be proven or is it just a rule of thumb?

It depends on the formula. Some formulas are derived from mathematical principles and can be proven, while others are based on empirical observations and may be considered rules of thumb.

5. Are there any limitations or assumptions associated with the formula?

Yes, most formulas have limitations and may only be applicable under certain conditions or assumptions. It is important to understand these limitations when using a formula to solve a problem.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
441
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
760
Replies
2
Views
272
  • General Math
Replies
0
Views
823
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top