Is there an alternate way to represent the multiple summation given below?
$\displaystyle \Large \sum_{i_k=k}^{n} \space \sum_{i_{k-1}=k-1}^{i_k} \dots \sum_{i_2=2}^{i_3} \space \sum_{i_1=1}^{i_2}$
It guess it is wrong to write it as a product of summations like $\displaystyle \large \prod_{\Large j=k}^{1}\space \sum_{\Large i_j=j}^{\Large i_{j+1}}$.

What's a better, concise notation ?

Update: Another way is $\displaystyle \quad \large \sum\limits_{\Large n \geq i_k \geq i_{k-1} \dots \geq i_2 \geq i_1 \geq 1}$.

Are there any other ways?

  • $\begingroup$ Note that the update isn't correct, since it allows for $(1,1,1,\ldots)$ which your original notation doesn't allow for. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Lin Jun 12 '13 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ yea I missed one constraint. The answer by Goos seems to be fine. $\endgroup$ – AIB Jun 12 '13 at 15:09

I would use $$ \large \sum_{\substack{1 \le i_1 \le i_2 \le \cdots \le i_k \le n \\ i_j \ge j \;\; \forall j}} $$

A summation in this form is understood to be taken over all ordered tuples $(i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_k)$ which satisfy the inequalities given. See Wikipedia for a list of various notational conventions.

  • $\begingroup$ @CalvinLin $i_j \ge j$ is in my condition. Perhaps I misunderstand you (the OP copied down my sum incorrectly). $\endgroup$ – 6005 Jun 12 '13 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, my bad, I didn't see that you had it. I just saw OP's version. $\endgroup$ – Calvin Lin Jun 12 '13 at 14:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\displaystyle\sum_{l \le i_l \le i_{l+1}}_{ 1 \le l \le k}$... Is this type of notation accepatable? with $i_{k+1}=n$? $\endgroup$ – AIB Jun 25 '13 at 22:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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