Is there an accepted notation for the nth sum/integral of a function?












2












$begingroup$


I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation




integration functional-analysis summation






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







Peace Blaster

















asked 2 hours ago









Peace BlasterPeace Blaster

387




387












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
$endgroup$
– Arjang
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
$endgroup$
– Arjang
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



$$
sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
$$



$$
sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
    $endgroup$
    – Peace Blaster
    2 hours ago



















1












$begingroup$

How about something like :
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3104629%2fis-there-an-accepted-notation-for-the-nth-sum-integral-of-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker

    42.7k549113




    42.7k549113












    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
    $endgroup$
    – Peace Blaster
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
    $endgroup$
    – Peace Blaster
    2 hours ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    How about something like :
    $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



    Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      How about something like :
      $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



      Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        How about something like :
        $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



        Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        How about something like :
        $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



        Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        ArjangArjang

        5,60162363




        5,60162363






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3104629%2fis-there-an-accepted-notation-for-the-nth-sum-integral-of-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 0 I was attemping to use Ola Hallengrens scripts to backup to a remote NAS, but it was failing and not giving any direct errors, so I tried doing it manually using Server Management Studio and got the following error: TITLE: Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio Failed to retrieve data for this request. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Management.Sdk.Sfc) For help, click: http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink?ProdName=Microsoft%20SQL%20Server&LinkId=20476 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: An exception occurred while executing a Transact-SQL statement or batch. (Microsoft.SqlServer.ConnectionInfo) The operating system returned the error '0x80070005(Access is denied.)&#
            Read more

            Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

            Image
            0 My explanation will be opinion based as it is based on my findings. If more information is needed, I am always happy to add it. The setup We have 4 SQL Server 2016 Instances, and all 4 underlying servers are in a WSFC (In my eyes a strange setup since Always On AG's are 2 by 2. But that is a different question.) 4 nodes + Fileshare witness Version: 13.0.5026.0 (all nodes) The instances that are having the failover issues are instances 1 & 2. They have 3 AG's between them. AG1 is primary on instance 1 and is having the issue. AG2 and AG3 are primary on instance 2. Instances 3 and 4 have their own separate AG's (2). AG1's settings The week before Last week, after checking for long running queries (none) and the synchronization state (green accross the board) we initiated a
            Read more

            Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints

            Image
            5 2 In restoring a database from a pg_dump , a number of errors are being generated and the whole table is subsequently being ignored. An example: ERROR: insert or update on table "channelproducts" violates foreign key constraint "fk_rails_dfaae373a5" DETAIL: Key (channel_id)=(1) is not present in table "channels". Interestingly enough, I've noted that all these instances are popping up because of the sequence of loading. channels is after channelproducts both alphabetically and in the file and thus I can understand why postgres complains about having to create a child without a parent. caveat: the foreign key is being generated automatically by rails 4.2: I could remove the problem at the source but that still does not really solve the problem... version: PostgreSQL
            Read more