How I would say the following summation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bingk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Summation
Bingk
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
How to say ...

Hi ... I'm doing a small presentation and I was wondering how I would say the following summation:

\sum_{0<i_1<...<i_n<p} \left(\frac{i_1}{3}\right) \frac{(-1)^{i_1}}{i_1 i_2 \cdot \cdot \cdot i_n}

where \left(\frac{i_1}{3}\right) is the Legendre symbol, n is a positive odd integer and p is a prime such that p>n+1.

I'm not sure how to say the Legendre part ... would it be "the Legendre of i_1 over 3"?

Also, I'm not sure how I would say the summation part (the index) because it's not a straightforward from i=1 to p-1. It's a combination of unique (not equal) i's arranged in order, where 0<i<p.

Thanks, any help would be much appreciated :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Looks good: the Legendre symbol ##i_1## over ##3## describes the first factor and the summation is over all possible combinations ##0<i_1 < \ldots < i_n< p## for a fixed ##n##. If you also want to sum over ##n##, then an additional ##\sum_n## is necessary.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top