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

What is the name of the following summation formula?

$$\sum_{k = 1}^n f(k)) = \int_1^{n + 1} f - \frac{f(n + 1) + f(0)}2 + \int_1^{n + 1} f'w,$$ where $w$ is the “sawtooth” function, defined by $w(x) = (x – (k + 1/2))$, for $k < x <= k + 1$, if $k$ is an integer.

From this formula one can obtain the sum of the first $n$ $k$-th powers. No guessing is necessary, you just turn the crank. However, you have to start at 1 and work your way up. So, if you want the formula for the sum of the first $n$ cubes, say, then you first use this formula to find the formula for the sum of the first $n$ 1-st powers, and then use all this information to find the formula for the sum of the first $n$ squares, and then, finally, use all this information to find the formula for the sum of the first $n$ cubes.

I’ve been calling it Gauss’s Summation Formula, but attributions are often variable, and there might be a more appropriate one that I should be using. I got taken to the woodshed over this. Here is the woodshed link:

Proof that $\sum_{k=1}^n k^2$ = $\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}$?

share|cite|improve this question
Isn't this Euler-Maclaurin summation, q.v.? – Gerry Myerson Jul 3 '11 at 4:24
@Mike: I tried to edit your question to LaTeX syntax, but I wasn't sure what you meant by "integral(from 1 to n + 1, of f’w)". – Martin Sleziak Jul 3 '11 at 4:30
I guess Gerry is right and you meant f'(t)w(t). See the form of Euler summation formulat in thees books:…… – Martin Sleziak Jul 3 '11 at 4:41
If, to find $S_{p} = \sum_{k=1}^{n}k^p$, it requires that we know $S_{1}, \ldots, S_{p-1} $, then it isn't that effective, surely? I can think of an extremely simple way to do that -- or, at least, when p is odd! – Lyrebird Jul 3 '11 at 5:51
May be it's this:'s_summation_formula – user9413 Jul 3 '11 at 9:23
up vote 7 down vote accepted

It seems the formula should read $$\sum_{k=0}^nf(k)=\int_0^nf(t)\,dt+{f(0)+f(n)\over2}+\int_0^nf'(t)w(t)\,dt$$ where $w(t)=t-[t]-1/2$. This is how it's given as (1) at the Wikipedia article on the Euler–Maclaurin formula (it's not Euler-Maclaurin, but is a step along the way to the proof of Euler-Maclaurin). This differs from the way Mike has written it in the handling of $n$ and $n+1$ as upper limits, and 0 and 1 as lower limits, but surely those differences are easy to take into account.

I concur with Martin Sleziak that it's called Euler summation (and not Euler-Maclaurin, despite my earlier comment).

share|cite|improve this answer
I would say it's the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula with a first-order remainder term - although it is also a step on the way to proving the infinite series version of the formula. (An analogy is Taylor's formula: You can express it with a remainder term or as an infinite series.) And I've seen it called both "Euler's summation formula" and "Euler-Maclaurin summation formula." In fact, once I called it the former in a paper and was told by a referee to change it to the latter. – Mike Spivey Jul 4 '11 at 4:39
@Mike, so I was right the first time? I can live with that.... – Gerry Myerson Jul 4 '11 at 5:53
(Essentially it's Euler-Maclaurin indeed but) I've also heard name “Sonin(e) formula” for this particular variant. – Grigory M Aug 24 '11 at 21:04
@Grigory, I have found formulas attributed to Sonin but they don't look like the one we're discussing. Do you have a reference? – Gerry Myerson Aug 25 '11 at 4:31

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.