A Simplifying a double summation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexity of simplifying a double summation in a given function involving error functions. Participants express skepticism about the feasibility of reducing the sums to a simpler form, noting the inherent complexity. Suggestions include removing constants that do not contribute to the sums and expressing error functions as integrals to explore potential simplifications. There is also a mention of examining the relationships between adjacent terms to facilitate summation. Overall, the conversation highlights the challenges and potential strategies for simplifying the mathematical expression.
Ad VanderVen
Messages
169
Reaction score
13
TL;DR Summary
Simplifying a double summation.
Is it possible to simplify the function below so that the sums disappear.
$$\displaystyle g \left(x \right) \, = \, \sum _{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \left(-A +B \right) \sum _{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2}~\frac{\sqrt{2}~e^{-\frac{1}{2}~\frac{\left(x -k \right)^{2}}{\sigma ^{2}}}~\left(U -V \right)}{\sigma ~\sqrt{\pi }}$$
with
$$\displaystyle A\, = \,1/2\,{\rm erf} \left(1/2\,{\frac { \sqrt{2} \left( -j-1/2+{\it omicron} \right) }{\rho}}\right),$$
$$\displaystyle B\, = \,1/2\,{\rm erf} \left(1/2\,{\frac { \sqrt{2} \left( -j+1/2+{\it omicron} \right) }{\rho}}\right),$$
$$\displaystyle U\, = \,1/2\,{\rm erf} \left(1/4\,{\frac { \sqrt{2} \left( -2\,bj+2\,k+1 \right) }{\tau}}\right)$$
and
$$\displaystyle V\, = \,1/2\,{\rm erf} \left(1/4\,{\frac { \sqrt{2} \left( -2\,bj+2\,k-1 \right) }{\tau}}\right)$$
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It seems very complex to me. Why do you estimate or expect that it would be reduced to a no sum form ?
 
anuttarasammyak said:
It seems very complex to me. Why do you estimate or expect that it would be reduced to a no sum form ?
I do not know.
 
Get rid of all the constants that can be taken out of the sums, they just blow up the expression for absolutely no reason.

You can express all the error functions as integrals and then see if adjacent terms have some nice relation for the boundaries that allows summation. The error function arguments look like there might be something you can combine.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
Back
Top