Summation of 1^1+2^2+3^3+....+k^k

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ddddd28
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    summation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The summation of the series \( \sum_{n=1}^{k} n^n \) does not have a known shorter representation. While the discussion references Faulhaber's formula and the potential use of Bernoulli numbers, the consensus is that the expression remains complex and lengthy, particularly for values of \( k \) greater than 5. The Stirling formula may provide an approximation, but no analytic expression is established for this series.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of summation notation and series
  • Familiarity with Faulhaber's formula
  • Knowledge of Bernoulli numbers
  • Basic concepts of asymptotic analysis using Stirling's approximation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the application of Faulhaber's formula in polynomial summation
  • Study Bernoulli numbers and their properties
  • Learn about Stirling's approximation and its uses in series
  • Explore advanced topics in asymptotic analysis for series convergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineers, and students interested in advanced summation techniques and series analysis.

ddddd28
Messages
73
Reaction score
4
Does that summatiom have a shorter representation at all?
##\sum_{n=1}^{k} n^n = ?##
I guess it is not of the form of constant power series, but I could not find an alternative.

Mentor note: made formula render properly[/size]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Huh? Looks both like nn to me.

I'm not aware of an analytic expression. It can probably be approximated with the Stirling formula and then some integration.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
It's kk :-)
 
Maybe one can use Faulhaber to rewrite ##n^n## as difference of ##\sum_{k=1}^n k^n - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} k^n## to get an expression in Bernoulli numbers which can then be summed again. A giant polynomial of Bernoulli numbers. Of course my bet to the original question
ddddd28 said:
Does that summatiom have a shorter representation at all?
is NO. I mean the length of the expression is seven! Almost impossible to shorten.
 
fresh_42 said:
is NO. I mean the length of the expression is seven! Almost impossible to shorten.
Not true for an engineer for k>5 or so...

k^k
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
berkeman said:
Not true for an engineer for k>5 or so...

k^k
Now as you say it. Mathematicians can also shorter ...
##O(1)##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K