Is this Product Notation for a Compound Sum Formula Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ktoz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form Product
AI Thread Summary
The compound sum formula presented is \frac{(m + n)!(a(n + 1) + cm)}{m!(n + 1)!}. The user seeks to express this formula in product notation and proposes the form \frac{(m + n)!(a(n + 1) + cm)}{m!(n + 1)!} = (a(n + 1) + cm) \prod_{j=1}^n \frac{m + j}{j + 1}. Confirmation is provided that the proposed product notation is correct. The discussion concludes with an affirmation of the accuracy of the notation.
ktoz
Messages
170
Reaction score
12
I came up with this compound sum formula

<br /> \frac{(m + n)!(a(n + 1) + cm)}{m!(n + 1)!}<br />

and am attempting to represent it in product notation. Is the form below correct?

<br /> \frac{(m + n)!(a(n + 1) + cm)}{m!(n + 1)!} = (a(n + 1) + cm) \prod_{j=1}^n \frac{m + j}{j + 1}<br />

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
yes it is correct
 
Thanks AKG
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top