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'm studying Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1 (3rd ed.) and came across the following on page 27:

The precise meaning of $\sum_{R(j)} a_j$ is therefore

$$\sum_{R(j)} a_j = (\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{R(j), -n\leq j < 0} a_j) + (\lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{R(j), 0\leq j < n} a_j)$$

On the second limit, why does the range exclude n? I see there's a symmetry to the two inequalities when written this way, but don't see why -n would be included in the range while n is not. It calls to mind the ranges of two's complement binary integers, but I wouldn't think that has any relevance here.

I've looked through the errata for the book on Knuth's web site, and see the equation mentioned in a correction, but only to flip the order of the terms on the right-hand-side. So, having already had some amount of attention, I don't believe there is a typo in the equation.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

It simply doesn't make any difference. Presumably Knuth wants both ranges to be of length $n$, but you can replace $<$ with $\leq$ and vice versa without effecting the limit.

share|cite|improve this answer
+1. The only thing is to avoid counting $a_0$ twice. – Did Sep 10 '11 at 20:13

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.