28
$\begingroup$

Given a set of numbers $S=\{x_1,\dotsc,x_{|S|}\}$, where $|S|$ is the size of the set, what would be the appropriate notation for the sum of this set of numbers? Is it

$$\sum_{x_i \in S} x_i \qquad\text{or}\qquad \sum_{i=1}^{|S|} x_i$$ or something else?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Knuth's Concrete Mathematics p. 22 discusses this, and has a whole chapter about the summation operator. $\endgroup$ Commented May 31, 2017 at 2:09

4 Answers 4

42
$\begingroup$

I'd write either $\displaystyle\quad\sum_{i=1}^{|S|} x_i\quad$ or $\displaystyle\quad\sum_{x\in S} x$.

If the second form is used, then the subscript is just clutter.

Some mathematicians (perhaps especially set theorists?) might write $\displaystyle \sum S$. This would parallel the way set theorists write $\displaystyle \bigcup S$ where others might write $\displaystyle \bigcup_{x\in S} x$.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ The set theorist's notation is useful, because it does not invoke dummy variables. The idea is that $\sum$ should be a function of type $\mathscr{P} \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ (or replace $\mathbb{R}$ with your favourite ring). This idea eventually leads to the general notion higher-order functions and functors and monads... $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Commented Feb 21, 2012 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ What does $x_i$ mean, considering that a set doesn't have any order (and hence not any "$i$th" element)? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 21:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @HelloGoodbye : Often one specifies the members of a set by means of a sequence or other indexed family. For example $\left\{\frac 1 i : i\in\mathbb N\right\}.$ That doesn't mean that that way of putting the members of the set in one-to-one correspondence with the members of $\mathbb N$ is an attribute of the set itself. $\qquad$ $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 2, 2020 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ That makes sense. But is this a more colloquial way of writing or is it generally accepted also in formal contexts? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 3, 2020 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ When it comes to your example, though, I don't really understand what you are trying to illustrate, as that expression works even without sequencing the natural numbers (i.e. it doesn't require the natural numbers to have any specific order). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 3, 2020 at 14:03
5
$\begingroup$

Both expressions are acceptable with the second being more usual in this context.

The expression $$\sum_{x \in S} x$$ is more common when $S$ is implicitly defined, e.g., when one is summing over all prime numbers. The expression $$\sum_{i =1}^{|S|} x_i$$ would be more common here because you are explicitly given the list of elements of the set $S$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ As Michael Hardy says below, the subscripts are unnecessary and unsightly in the first expression. $\endgroup$
    – Tom Cooney
    Commented Feb 21, 2012 at 17:15
0
$\begingroup$

You can use sigma notation with index:

$$ \sum_{i=1}^{|S|} x_i $$

Alternatively, index may be assigned an explicit set indexes:

$$ \sum_{i \in \langle 1,|S| \rangle} x_i $$

Or go without indexes, like that:

$$ \sum_{x \in S} x $$

There is also other notation when there's a set of numbers that meet specific condition:

$$ \sum_{ \{{ \omega: a\omega^3+b\omega^2+c\omega = 0 \}} } \omega $$

The example above represents a sum of the roots of the $ax^3+bx^2+cx$ expression.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Say I had a set A, under an operation with the properties of $+$, then $$\sum_{i\in A} x_i$$ is how I write it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You'd be summing undefined items $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 22, 2017 at 23:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You want to write $i \in \{1,\dots,|A|\}$ instead of $i \in A$ since $i$ is an index. It doesn't make any sense to use an element in $A$ to index $x$ (which is what you are currently doing since you write $i \in A$). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1, 2020 at 21:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .