Cauchy product of several series

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter m4r35n357
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cauchy Product Series
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Cauchy product of several series, focusing on the notation and implications of the product and sum involved. Participants express confusion regarding the notation used in the Wikipedia article and explore the complexities of representing products of multiple series.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the notation in the Wikipedia article, particularly regarding the meaning of commas in the summation indices.
  • Another participant explains that the notation is necessary to distinguish between multiple series and their indices, noting that using letters for indices becomes impractical with many series.
  • A participant questions whether the terms within the product/sum notation can be implemented in practice, indicating a desire to understand the practical application of the formula.
  • Further clarification is provided that the notation represents a product of sums across multiple series, emphasizing the complexity of handling combinations of terms from different series.
  • One participant reflects on the challenges of numerically handling large combinations of series and mentions an investigation into integer exponents of Taylor series as a related topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the clarity of the notation or its practical implementation. There are multiple viewpoints regarding the complexity and usability of the Cauchy product notation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the notation and its implications, particularly in terms of practical implementation and numerical handling of large series combinations.

m4r35n357
Messages
657
Reaction score
148
TL;DR
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)?
 
Physics 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K