Solve Compound Sum for Unknown: a, c, l, and m

  • Thread starter Thread starter ktoz
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving for the unknown variable "m" in a compound summation formula. The formula calculates the compound sum of terms based on given parameters: a, c, l, and m, where a and c are real numbers, and l and m are natural numbers. The user seeks a method to isolate "m" from the rearranged formula, which involves factorials and compound summation. There is confusion regarding the necessity of four variables to define an arithmetic sequence, with some participants suggesting that three would suffice. The primary goal is to determine if a general approach exists to isolate "m" in the context of the compound sum formula.
ktoz
Messages
170
Reaction score
12
Hi

I have a summation formula that can calculate the compound sum of terms

(a + c0) + (a + c1) + (a + c2) ... + (a + cm) to any level. Or put another way, it can sum the terms, sum the sums of the terms sum the sums of the sums of the terms etc.

Given
a = element of reals
c = element of reals
l = element of naturals
m = element of naturals

where
a = 1
c = 1
l = 1
m = 4

10 = \frac{(m + l)!(a(l + 1) + cm)}{m!(l + 1)!}

where
a = 1
c = 2
l = 2
m = 4

30 = \frac{(m + l)!(a(l + 1) + cm)}{m!(l + 1)!}

etc

What I'm wondering is, if given a compound sum and an unknown m, is it possible to do some sorcery and solve for m?

For example, with the simple case of summing naturals

v = \frac{n(n + 1)}{2}
n = \frac{(sqrt(8v + 1) - 1)}{2}

Can the same sort of thing be done with the above compound sum formula?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Omitting all the extraneous stuff from above, it becomes

v = \frac{(m + l)!(al + a + cm)}{m!(l + 1)!} <br />

Rearranging terms and expanding factorials I got this

v = \frac {(al + a + cm)(m + 1)(m + 2)(m + 3) ... \times (m + l)}{1 \times 2 \times 3 ... \times (l + 1)}

But what I don't know is if there is any way to rearrange the above to isolate the m term. Anyone know if there is a general way to do that?
 
Last edited:
Your notation is incredibly confusing... why do you need four variables to define an arithmetic sequence? At worst you should only need three
 
Office_Shredder said:
Your notation is incredibly confusing...

Sorry. Highest level math I took in school was Algebra 2 (twenty years ago) so I'm kind of making it up as I go along.

Why do you need four variables to define an arithmetic sequence? At worst you should only need three

It's to allow for compound summation. for example

a = real = starting point
c = real = constant difference
m = natural = zero based term index
l = natural = zero based summation level

Example 1:
a = 1, c = 1, m = 5, l = 4

Sum table:
0 1 2 3 4 5 m
----------------------------------------
1 1 1 1 1 1 c
----------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6 l = 0
1 3 6 10 15 21 l = 1
1 4 10 20 35 56 l = 2
1 5 15 35 70 126 l = 3
1 6 21 56 126 252 l = 4

Plugged into formula
252 = \frac{(5 + 4)!(1 \times 4 + 1 + 1 * 5)}{5!(4 + 1)!}

Example 2:
a = 1, c = 5, m = 5, l = 4

Sum table:
0 1 2 3 4 5 m
----------------------------------------
0 5 5 5 5 5 c
----------------------------------------
1 6 11 16 21 26 l = 0
1 7 18 34 55 81 l = 1
1 8 26 60 115 196 l = 2
1 9 35 95 210 406 l = 3
1 10 45 140 350 756 l = 4

Plugged into formula
756 = \frac{(5 + 4)!(1 \times 4 + 1 + 5 * 5)}{5!(4 + 1)!}

What the formula does isn't as much of a concern as how to isolate "m"
 
Last edited:
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...
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 '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