Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've been going through some series notes from my lecture and got stuck at this equality: $$\left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty\frac{z^j}{j!}\right)\left(\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{w^k}{k!}\right)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^n\frac{z^jw^{n-j}}{j!(n-j)!}$$ Where $z,w\in\mathbb C$.

Rather than a proof, I'm looking more for a way of understanding this equality, so next time I see something similar I go "oh, right, I know that". Right now I only have vague ideas of why that would be true.

Thanks a bunch for any help!

share|cite|improve this question
Let $a_j={z^j\over j!}$ and $b_j={w^k\over k!}$. If $M$ is the infinite matrix whose $i$'th row is $[ a_0 b_i\ a_1 b_i\ a_2 b_i\ \cdots]$, the the expression on the left represents the sum of the elements of $M$. So does the expression on the right: the inner sum is the sum of the elements of the $n$'th diagonal of $M$ (the "increasing diagonals"). – David Mitra Dec 11 '12 at 22:06
Thanks David, together with Robert Israel's answer this makes perfect sense to me now. – Dahn Jahn Dec 11 '12 at 22:12
You're welcome. And, sorry for the typos in my previous comment (I should have had $b_k$, not $b_j$, in particular...). – David Mitra Dec 11 '12 at 22:15
Nice question.+1 – Babak S. Dec 30 '12 at 9:50
up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is an example of the change of order of summation (regrouping terms). Formally (without concern for convergence), the product $$ \begin{align} \left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\right)\left(\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_j\right) &=\sum_{i=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_ib_j\tag{1}\\ &=\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{j=0}^k a_{k-j}b_j\tag{2} \end{align} $$ $(1)$ is the distributing multiplication over addition.

$(2)$ is a change of variables: $i+j=k$

Each product in $(1)$ appears once and once only in $(2)$.

share|cite|improve this answer

$$ (1+2+3+4+\cdots)\cdot\left(\begin{array} {} & \text{one} \\[6pt] + & \text{two} \\[6pt] + & \text{three} \\[6pt] + & \text{four} \\[6pt] + & \cdots \end{array}\right) $$ $$ = \sum \left[ \begin{array}{cccc} 1\cdot\text{one}, & 2\cdot\text{one}, & 3\cdot\text{one}, & 4\cdot\text{one}, & \cdots\\[6pt] 1\cdot\text{two}, & 2\cdot\text{two}, & 3\cdot\text{two}, & 4\cdot\text{two}, & \cdots\\[6pt] 1\cdot\text{three}, & 2\cdot\text{three}, & 3\cdot\text{three}, & 4\cdot\text{three}, & \cdots\\[6pt] 1\cdot\text{four}, & 2\cdot\text{four}, & 3\cdot\text{four}, & 4\cdot\text{four}, & \cdots\\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \end{array} \right] $$ \begin{align} & = \cdots\cdots\cdots +\sum\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \cdot & \cdot & 3\cdot\text{one}, & \cdot & \cdots\\[6pt] \cdot & 2\cdot\text{two}, & \cdot & \cdot & \cdots\\[6pt] 1\cdot\text{three}, & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdots\\[6pt] \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdots\\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \end{array} \right] \\[18pt] & {}\qquad\qquad\qquad{}+ \sum\left[ \begin{array}{cccc} \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & 4\cdot\text{one}, & \cdots\\[6pt] \cdot & \cdot & 3\cdot\text{two}, & \cdot & \cdots\\[6pt] \cdot & 2\cdot\text{three}, & \cdot & \cdot & \cdots\\[6pt] 1\cdot\text{four}, & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdots\\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \end{array} \right] + \cdots\cdots\cdots \end{align}

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice demonstration without words. (+1) – robjohn Dec 12 '12 at 2:59

Multiplying the $j$ term on the left with the $k$ term on the right gives you $\dfrac{z^j w^k}{j! k!}$. Now if $j+k=n$, this is $\dfrac{z^j w^{n-j}}{j! (n-j)!}$. Since $j$ and $k$ can be any nonnegative integers, the same is true for $n$. Given $n$, $j$ can be any integer from $0$ to $n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, I think I've got it. But let's check, is this true: So in the expression on the left, $(j,k)$ is going (a very improvised notation, hopefully it'll make sense) $(0,0),(0,1),(0,2),..,(1,0),(1,1),...$ whereas on the right we have $(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(0,2),(1,1),(2,0),..$ – Dahn Jahn Dec 11 '12 at 22:04

Given the series can be written

$=e^z e^w =e^{z+w}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty =\sum \sum....$

share|cite|improve this answer
Insight, rather than a proof, is what is sought. – robjohn Dec 11 '12 at 22:44

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.