I Cauchy product of several series

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of the Cauchy product of multiple series, particularly the notation used in the Wikipedia article, which confuses some participants. The notation involving commas and indices is explained as necessary for distinguishing between different series and their respective indices, especially when dealing with a large number of series. Participants express difficulty in understanding the implementation of the product and sum notation, specifically regarding how to practically apply it. The conversation highlights the challenges of managing large combinations of series in calculations, especially with integer exponents in Taylor series. Overall, the need for clearer explanations and potential alternative approaches to handling these mathematical concepts is emphasized.
m4r35n357
Messages
657
Reaction score
148
TL;DR Summary
Explanation of notation or alternative source desired.
I am trying to make sense of the wikipedia article section regarding Cauchy product of several series. but am stuck right at the start because the notation used there is unfamiliar to me and not explained previously in the article.
The commas in ##\Sigma a_1, k_1## etc. mean nothing to me. Am I missing something obvious? Is there a better article anywhere (I haven't found one)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If you want to consider products of finite arbitrary many factors, then you have to deal with it. There is no way to write it easier. E.g. if we had four series, we could write ##\sum_{k}a_k\, , \,\sum_{l}b_l\, , \,\sum_{m}c_m\, , \,\sum_{n}d_n##, but we have ##n## of them and no ##n## letters in the alphabet. In addition, it makes the formulas more complicated, as we would have terms ##a_{k}b_{l}c_{m}d_{n}## with ##(k,l,m,n) ## from a subset of indices of ##\mathbb{N}^4##. Hence we need to write ##a=a_1\, , \,b=a_2\, , \,c=a_3\, , \,d=a_4\, , \,\ldots ## as the different series elements. Now every one of them has an index, as it is a series. Here we have the similar problem: ##k,l,m,n## but with ##n## many series we run out of letters. Therefore we write ##k=k_1\, , \,l=k_2\, , \,m=k_3\, , \,n=k_4\, , \,\ldots## instead. Finally the comma in ##a_{j,k_j}## is only meant to distinguish the two indices: ##j-##th series with index ##k_j = 1,2,\ldots##
 
Hmm, not sure I understand. Are you saying that the term(s) within the product/sum ##\Pi \Sigma## on the third line do not represent a formula that I can implement myself, because that is my objective (I just don't know what the term means).
 
m4r35n357 said:
Hmm, not sure I understand.
Dito.
Are you saying that the term(s) within the product/sum ##\Pi \Sigma## on the third line ...
The third line is "and the ##n##th one converges. Then the series". I assume you mean the sixth.
... do not represent a formula that I can implement myself, ...
What? I have only explained the meaning of notation, and nothing about implementations.
... because that is my objective (I just don't know what the term means).
This is what I have explained, or at least tried to. ##\prod_{j=1^n}\left( \sum_{k_j=0}^\infty a_{j,k_j}\right)## is simply the product of ##n## series. The left hand side is a bit complicated, and cannot be implemented, since your algorithm won't halt. It is ##n## sums of products of ##n## factors, where every factor is from a different series, and the sum is over all possible combinations. It is the distributive law for ##n## factors and ##n## series.
 
Heh, I meant the third line of equations, so you got the right part! So if I get you the term just represents all the combinations requred to form the RHS. In that case I would agree it gets too big to handle (numerically) for large numbers of series.

I am actually investigating whether there is a sensible way of doing (large) integer exponents of taylor series. This literal approach is the baseline, but maybe there is a better way. Real exponents are surprisingly simple, but are restricted to a powers of a positive base.

Thanks, I need to go away and think a bit more.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top