Is there an accepted notation for the nth sum/integral of a function?












2












$begingroup$


I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago














2












2








2





$begingroup$


I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I'm working on a thesis in image processing at the moment, and wanted to include a portion concerning the methodology for n dimension images (it will include a fully write up and functioning code for 2D and 3D images), and that would involve taking the nth integral of a function of n variables, which in this case would mean the nth sum. For the sum portion, it would something like the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, then the sum of x_1 from 0 to M, and so on with a total of of N summations.



Is there any sort of widely accepted convention for annotating this, or should I just put something like sum1 of sum2 /dots then the last sum?



edit: specific examples (sorry, didn't know you could use LaTeX here):



2D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M f(x_1,x_2)$$
3D: $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M sum_{x_3=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,x_3)$$
Is there a nicer way to express something like:
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$






integration functional-analysis summation




integration functional-analysis summation






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago







Peace Blaster

















asked 2 hours ago









Peace BlasterPeace Blaster

387




387












  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
    $endgroup$
    – Ethan Bolker
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
    $endgroup$
    – Arjang
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Your question is not clear. Please edit it to show us an explicit calculation for $2$ and $3$ dimensional images with $M$ small (say $3$).
$endgroup$
– Ethan Bolker
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
$endgroup$
– Arjang
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
you can also make your own notation, similar to what they do when they have the same function being applied many times e.g. $f^n(x)$ as long as you have mentioned that the function is reaplied
$endgroup$
– Arjang
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



$$
sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
$$



$$
sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
$$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
    $endgroup$
    – Peace Blaster
    2 hours ago



















1












$begingroup$

How about something like :
$$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3104629%2fis-there-an-accepted-notation-for-the-nth-sum-integral-of-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago
















    4












    $begingroup$

    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    I don't know of a convention. Your last version is perfectly clear. If you need to use it more than once then define a short symbol the first time. That could be as simple as $sum_0^M f$.



    Here are two suggestions each using just a single $sum$.



    $$
    sum_{x in [1, 2, ldots, M]^n} f(x)
    $$



    $$
    sum_{x_i = 0, (i = 1, ldots n)}^M f(x_i, x_2, ldots, x_n)
    $$







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    Ethan BolkerEthan Bolker

    42.7k549113




    42.7k549113












    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
      $endgroup$
      – Peace Blaster
      2 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
    $endgroup$
    – Peace Blaster
    2 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Thanks! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious, though that second example looks pretty nice for when I put it in beamer and have limited space.
    $endgroup$
    – Peace Blaster
    2 hours ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    How about something like :
    $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



    Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      How about something like :
      $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



      Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        How about something like :
        $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



        Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        How about something like :
        $$sum_{x_1=0}^M sum_{x_2=0}^M dots sum_{x_n=0}^M f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n) = large]_{k=x_0}^{k=x_n}sum_{x_k=0}^{M_n}f(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$$



        Once you use the above as definition then you can reuse it all over the place, also writing repeated sums was something that caused the the tensor notation to be invented. You might want to look up tensors instead.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 1 hour ago









        ArjangArjang

        5,60162363




        5,60162363






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3104629%2fis-there-an-accepted-notation-for-the-nth-sum-integral-of-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
            Read more

            Berlina muro

            Image
            La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
            Read more

            Berlina aerponto

            Image
            Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
            Read more