[math-fun] An identity by Wrench generalized
Knuth, TAOCP, vol.3, p.644, ex.27 gives the following identity, attributed to Wrench: sum(k>=1, A(k)*x^k / (1-x^k) ) = sum(k>=1, x^(k*k) * (A(k) + sum(j>=1, (A(k) + A(k+j)) * x^(k*j)) ) ) This can be verified by writing the terms in sum(k>=1, sum(j>=1, A(k) * x^(k*j) ) ) into a rectangular table and taking sums starting from the diagonal entries, simultaneously to the right and downwards. Just today I managed to find a generalization: sum(k>=1, A(k)*t^k / (1 - B(k)*x^k) ) = sum(k>=1, x^(k*(k-1)) * t^k * (A(k)*B(k)^(k-1) + sum(j>=1, ( A(k)*B(k)^(k+j-1)*x^j + A(k+j)*B(k+j)^(k-1)*t^j ) * x^(j*(k-1)) ) ) ) Setting t=x and B(k)=1 gives Wrench's identity. This is of a kind of formulas I am extremely fond of. Plus it is (at least computationally) even more general than R. P. Agarwal's identity for sum(n>=0, t^n/(1-x*q^n)) (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6525 ) Should I sent this one to Knuth? Best, jj Pari code to verify: ----------------------- N=33; x='x+O('x^N); A(k)=eval(Str("a" k)); B(k)=eval(Str("b" k)); t2 = sum(k=1,N, A(k)*t^k / (1 - B(k)*x^k) ); { t6 = sum(k=1,N, x^(k*(k-1)) * t^k * (A(k)*B(k)^(k-1) + sum(j=1,N, ( A(k)*B(k)^(k+j-1)*x^j + A(k+j)*B(k+j)^(k-1)*t^j ) * x^(j*(k-1)) ) ) ); } t2-t6 \\ == zero (up to orders x^N and t^N) -----------------------
Why not? He won't bite you! [And you might even get a mention in the next edition.] WFL On 4/6/14, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
Knuth, TAOCP, vol.3, p.644, ex.27 gives the following identity, attributed to Wrench:
sum(k>=1, A(k)*x^k / (1-x^k) ) = sum(k>=1, x^(k*k) * (A(k) + sum(j>=1, (A(k) + A(k+j)) * x^(k*j)) ) )
This can be verified by writing the terms in
sum(k>=1, sum(j>=1, A(k) * x^(k*j) ) )
into a rectangular table and taking sums starting from the diagonal entries, simultaneously to the right and downwards.
Just today I managed to find a generalization: sum(k>=1, A(k)*t^k / (1 - B(k)*x^k) ) = sum(k>=1, x^(k*(k-1)) * t^k * (A(k)*B(k)^(k-1) + sum(j>=1, ( A(k)*B(k)^(k+j-1)*x^j + A(k+j)*B(k+j)^(k-1)*t^j ) * x^(j*(k-1)) ) ) ) Setting t=x and B(k)=1 gives Wrench's identity.
This is of a kind of formulas I am extremely fond of.
Plus it is (at least computationally) even more general than R. P. Agarwal's identity for sum(n>=0, t^n/(1-x*q^n)) (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6525 )
Should I sent this one to Knuth?
Best, jj
Pari code to verify: ----------------------- N=33; x='x+O('x^N); A(k)=eval(Str("a" k)); B(k)=eval(Str("b" k)); t2 = sum(k=1,N, A(k)*t^k / (1 - B(k)*x^k) ); { t6 = sum(k=1,N, x^(k*(k-1)) * t^k * (A(k)*B(k)^(k-1) + sum(j=1,N, ( A(k)*B(k)^(k+j-1)*x^j + A(k+j)*B(k+j)^(k-1)*t^j ) * x^(j*(k-1)) ) ) ); } t2-t6 \\ == zero (up to orders x^N and t^N) -----------------------
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
="Fred Lunnon" <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> Why not? He won't bite you! [And you might even get a mention in the next edition.]
I recommend this. I once mailed him hardcopy (DEK's preferred medium of correspondence) and he replied by penciling annotations (some quite amusing) on the document, sort of like proofing a paper. So should you also choose the dead tree channel, double space.
* Marc LeBrun <mlb@well.com> [Apr 06. 2014 19:39]:
="Fred Lunnon" <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> Why not? He won't bite you! [And you might even get a mention in the next edition.]
I recommend this. I once mailed him hardcopy (DEK's preferred medium of correspondence) and he replied by penciling annotations (some quite amusing) on the document, sort of like proofing a paper. So should you also choose the dead tree channel, double space.
Thanks for this advice! I'll let the note sit for a week or so because right after(*) writing I am usually blind for even the most blatant mistakes. Best, jj (*) and sometimes apparently for several years.
[...]
I once mailed him hardcopy (DEK's preferred medium of correspondence)
Yes, come to think of it, I do recall Knuth announcing a few years ago that he was abandoning email. In this respect he joins John Conway, who however didn't seem to bother announcing. I can understand a popular entertainer or prominent politician being obliged to take defensive action against information overload, presuming the problem was not merely spam. But I do find it surprising when a mathematician takes a step like this. Even if he is famous (for a mathematician)!
and sometimes apparently for several years.
That's exactly the bind: either shoot from the hip, or face Rip van Winkel-dom. WFL On 4/6/14, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
* Marc LeBrun <mlb@well.com> [Apr 06. 2014 19:39]:
="Fred Lunnon" <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> Why not? He won't bite you! [And you might even get a mention in the next edition.]
I recommend this. I once mailed him hardcopy (DEK's preferred medium of correspondence) and he replied by penciling annotations (some quite amusing) on the document, sort of like proofing a paper. So should you also choose the dead tree channel, double space.
Thanks for this advice!
I'll let the note sit for a week or so because right after(*) writing I am usually blind for even the most blatant mistakes.
Best, jj
(*) and sometimes apparently for several years.
[...]
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
I asked Knuth about his position on email once (in person), and his answer -- which I'm sure was not spontaneous, but rather one he had used many times before -- was, "e-mail is for people who want to stay on top of things. I want to get to the bottom of them." Hard to beat that, for either practicality or metaphorical depth. --Michael On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> wrote:
I once mailed him hardcopy (DEK's preferred medium of correspondence)
Yes, come to think of it, I do recall Knuth announcing a few years ago that he was abandoning email. In this respect he joins John Conway, who however didn't seem to bother announcing.
I can understand a popular entertainer or prominent politician being obliged to take defensive action against information overload, presuming the problem was not merely spam. But I do find it surprising when a mathematician takes a step like this. Even if he is famous (for a mathematician)!
and sometimes apparently for several years.
That's exactly the bind: either shoot from the hip, or face Rip van Winkel-dom.
WFL
On 4/6/14, Joerg Arndt <arndt@jjj.de> wrote:
* Marc LeBrun <mlb@well.com> [Apr 06. 2014 19:39]:
="Fred Lunnon" <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> Why not? He won't bite you! [And you might even get a mention in the next edition.]
I recommend this. I once mailed him hardcopy (DEK's preferred medium of correspondence) and he replied by penciling annotations (some quite amusing) on the document, sort of like proofing a paper. So should you also choose the dead tree channel, double space.
Thanks for this advice!
I'll let the note sit for a week or so because right after(*) writing I am usually blind for even the most blatant mistakes.
Best, jj
(*) and sometimes apparently for several years.
[...]
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
* Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> [Apr 06. 2014 15:14]:
Why not? He won't bite you! [And you might even get a mention in the next edition.]
WFL
Thanks for the encouraging reply! Just TeX-ed it up in a brief note, see http://jjj.de/pub/ (files arndt-wrench-*) I'd be very grateful for comments of any form. Best, jj
[...]
participants (4)
-
Fred Lunnon -
Joerg Arndt -
Marc LeBrun -
Michael Kleber