Can the Double Summation be Simplified?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Josie Jones
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Simplifying Summation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of a double summation expressed as $$ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum_{j=i+1}^n a_i a_j $$, exploring whether it can be reduced or reformulated to eliminate one of the summation symbols. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical exploration of summation techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in simplifying the double summation and questions if it can be expressed with fewer summation symbols.
  • Another participant suggests that the sum can be rearranged and combined with other terms, including a sum of squares, to create a more compact expression.
  • A different participant asserts that the original sum does not include terms of the form $$a_i^2$$, but acknowledges that adding such terms could lead to a compact expression.
  • One participant proposes an alternative representation using the Lag Operator, questioning the structure of the original summation.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of the proposed alternative, stating it represents a different sum altogether.
  • Further discussion highlights confusion regarding the indexing of the original summation, with some participants defending the conventional nature of the notation used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simplification of the double summation, with no consensus reached on the validity of alternative representations or the proposed methods for simplification.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the complexity of the indexing in the original summation, which may contribute to misunderstandings about its structure and potential simplifications.

Josie Jones
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am trying to simplify a double summation and was wondering if anyone would be able to help me.

The sum is

$$ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum_{j=i+1}^n a_i a_j $$

Is it possible to simplify it down and maybe lose one of the sigmas?

Thank you in advance :)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes. Consider ##\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} a_i a_j##. You can rearrange that until it looks like your original problem. This, plus the original sum, plus the sum over ##a_i^2## can be expressed much shorter, and that gives you a way to express your sum in a more convenient way as well.

All these steps are easier to follow if you draw a table (i,j).
 
There are no a_i^2 terms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mathman said:
There are no a_i^2 terms.
Not in the original sum, but if you add these terms (in a suitable way) you can get a nice compact expression. The original sum is then the difference between a nice compact expression and the sum of these squares (with suitable prefactors).
 
so if this $$ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum_{j=i+1}^n a_i a_j $$ is taking elements from the same vector a of size n and summing the products of adjacent elements, then why can't you write it as $$ \sum_{i=2}^{n} a_i La_i $$ where L is the Lag Operator:

862131b68e4a017e26f0a9c5e34af12fd42ce10c
for all t >1 (or a and index i in this case)
 
@BWV: That is a completely different sum.
 
Yes it is, the indexes in the OP are such a mess, I guessed at what perhaps was being attempted. The double sum with one index depending on the other does not make any sense to me
 
BWV said:
The double sum with one index depending on the other does not make any sense to me
Huh? That is very common, and the notation is nothing unusual either. The range of elements to be summed over in the inner sum depends on the index of the outer sum. So what?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K