Does pure mathematics bring a good, concise, straightforward, standard notation to express a symmetry argument?
I will give an example but as you can see, the example is too long—which is exactly my point. Is there not a much shorter, clearer, more conventional way to write something like this?
EXAMPLE
For example, per Parseval,
$$\sum_{j=0}^{10} e^{i2\pi(3/11)j} = 0$$
or more generally,
$$\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{i2\pi(n/N)j} = 0$$
as long as $N\neq 0$; as $n$ is not a multiple of $N$; as $(n,N)\in\mathbb Z$, etc.
There exist several not-very-interesting ways one could prove Parseval right, for example by evaluating the above expression or, if you prefer, by evaluating the perturbed
$$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0^{+}}\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{(i-\epsilon)2\pi(n/N)j} = 0$$
as a geometric series—but as I said, those ways aren't very interesting because they miss Parseval's point.
APPEAL TO SYMMETRY
Parseval is interesting not because he can add up a series but because he makes a statement about symmetry. Parseval says that a point in every direction is no point at all.
The sample argument above may be correct but, insofar as its method evokes no mental image of symmetry, I think it a poor argument. Does mathematics not bring some kind of symmetry symbology to appeal to symmetry more directly?
In the example, does mathematics not bring some kind of reasonably simple notation to say, "a point in every direction is no point at all"?
BACKGROUND
For information, my mathematical level is this: I hold a master's degree in engineering; have read a book on real analysis; have taken an undergraduate math-department course in complex analysis; and have taken two graduate math-department courses in linear algebra. I don't mind if you give an answer that flies over my head, but if you start talking in a terse manner about abstract algebra, rings, Lie groups, etc., you'll probably lose me.