2

I am interested in a closed formula for this kind of sum. Let's assume $f$ is a function well-defined on $\mathbb{N}$. Let's define the following recurrence formula: $\left\{ \begin{array}{c} f_0(x) = f(x),\space x \in \mathbb{N}\\ f_{n+1}(x) = \sum_{i=1}^x {f_n(i)} \end{array} \right.$

Any ideas ?

amWhy
  • 209,954
  • 1
    $f_n(x+1) = f_n(x)+f_{n-1}(x+1)$ is an interesting result, although I'm not if it's of any help. – D S Jan 07 '23 at 10:07
  • Actually, from the recurrence relation you mentioned, it is possible to write : $f_n(m+1)=f_0(m+1)+\sum_{i=1}^n{f_i(m)}$. – black-phoenix Jan 26 '23 at 08:55

1 Answers1

2

In fact, a double sequence is hidden behind your recurrence relation, because the functions $(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ form a sequence, each element of which contitutes itself, as function on integers, a sequence $(f_n(m))_{m\in\mathbb{N}}$. In consequence, let's denote this double sequence by $a_{nm}:=f_n(m)$; your problem is then restated as $$ \begin{cases} \displaystyle a_{nm} = \sum_{k=1}^m a_{n-1,k} & \forall n,m \ge 1 \\ \displaystyle a_{0,m} = f(m) & \forall m \ge 0 \end{cases} $$ Here appears a first issue : there is no initial condition for the second index. As is, the problem is thus not well-posed. For that reason, let's add the following condition : $$ a_{n,0} = g(n) \;\; \forall n \ge 1 $$ Now, even if this recurrence relation is quite hard to solve in the current form, since it is linear with respect to the elements of the sequence, it is possible to use its generating function, that is why one defines $\displaystyle A(x,y) := \sum_{n,m\ge0}a_{nm}x^ny^m$ (be careful that this $x$ is different from yours, this one a continuous variable). The solution of your problem will be then given by $$ \displaystyle f_n(m) = a_{nm} = \frac{1}{n!m!}\left.\frac{\partial^{n+m}A}{\partial x^n \partial y^m}\right|_{x=0,y=0} $$

One still has to find the generating function. Let's decompose $A(x,y)$ with the help of the recurrence relation : $$ \begin{array}{rcll} A(x,y) &=& \displaystyle \sum_{n,m\ge0} a_{nm} x^n y^m \\ &=& \displaystyle a_{00} + \sum_{n\ge1}a_{n,0}x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}a_{0,m}y^m + \sum_{n,m\ge1}a_{nm}x^ny^m & (1) \\ &=& \displaystyle f(0) + \sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m + \sum_{n,m\ge1}\sum_{k=1}^ma_{n-1,k}x^ny^m & (2) \\ &=& \displaystyle f(0) + \sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m + x\sum_{n\ge0}\sum_{m\ge1}\sum_{k=1}^ma_{nk}x^ny^m & (3) \\ &=& \displaystyle f(0) + \sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m + x\sum_{n\ge0}\sum_{k\ge1}\sum_{m\ge k+1}a_{nk}x^ny^m & (4) \\ &=& \displaystyle f(0) + \sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m + \frac{xy}{1-y}\sum_{n\ge0}\sum_{k\ge1}a_{nk}x^ny^k & (5) \\ &=& \displaystyle f(0) + \sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m + \frac{xy}{1-y}\left(\sum_{n\ge0}\sum_{k\ge0}a_{nk}x^ny^k - \sum_{n\ge0}a_{n,0}x^n\right) & (6) \\ &=& \displaystyle \left(1-\frac{xy}{1-y}\right)f(0) + \left(1-\frac{xy}{1-y}\right)\sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m + \frac{xy}{1-y}A(x,y) & (7) \end{array} $$ hence $$ A(x,y) = f(0) + \sum_{n\ge1}g(n)x^n + \frac{1-y}{1-y-xy}\sum_{m\ge1}f(m)y^m $$ which cannot be simplified further without specifying $f$ and $g$.

Note that the steps of the previous derivation are : (1) extracting the initial conditions from the sums; (2) using the recurrence relation; (3) re-indexing $n$ from $0$; (4) switching the sums in $m$ and $k$; (5) summing on $m$, using the truncated geometric series $\sum_{m\ge k+1}y^m = \frac{y^{k+1}}{1-y}$; (6) re-indexing $k$ from $0$ and adjusting; (7) recollecting the differents terms and using the definition of $A(x,y)$.


Addendum Another path is made of the following manipulations with nested sums : $$ \begin{array}{rcll} f_n(m) &=& \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^m f_{n-1}(k) \\ &=& \displaystyle \sum_{k_1=1}^m\sum_{k_2=1}^{k_1} \cdots \sum_{k_n=1}^{k_{n-1}} f_0(k_n) & (1) \\ &=& \displaystyle \sum_{k_n=1}^m\sum_{k_{n-1}=k_n+1}^m \cdots \sum_{k_1=k_2+1}^m f(k_n) & (2) \\ &=& \displaystyle \sum_{k_n=1}^mf(k_n)\sum_{k_{n-1}=k_n+1}^m \cdots \sum_{k_2=k_3+1}^m (m-k_2) & (3) \\ &=& \displaystyle \sum_{k_n=1}^mf(k_n)\sum_{k_{n-1}=k_n+1}^m \cdots \sum_{k_3=k_4+1}^m \left((m-k_3) + \frac{1}{2}m(m+1) - \frac{1}{2}k_3(k_3+1)\right) & (4) \\ &=& \displaystyle \ldots \\ &=& \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^m p_{n-1}(k)f(k) & (5) \end{array} $$ where $p_{n-1}(k)$ is a polynomial expression of degree $n-1$ in $m$ and $k$. The steps are : (1) using recurrence relation $n$ times; (2) switching all the sums; (3) summing on $k_1$; (4) summing on $k_2$; (5) sums of powers are polynomial.

Abezhiko
  • 8,153
  • @black-phoenix You should have said it. I'll edit my answer to add a path towards your wanted solution, but an upvote would be much appreciated for the effort. – Abezhiko Jan 07 '23 at 14:27
  • Thank you for your effort, I am sorry for the inconvenience, I thought about it later. – black-phoenix Jan 07 '23 at 16:39
  • For your first manner, how I can I determine the form of $g$ ? I have information regarding $f$, but actually I am not sure of the limit condition of $a_{n,0}$. I have $a_{0,0} = 0$ so I would says that $g(n) = 0$ because of the recurrence relation. – black-phoenix Jan 08 '23 at 13:25
  • @black-phoenix The function $g(n) = f_n(0)$ would be given by the context out of where your problem arises. If this context doesn't provide anything about it, you should be able to set $g \equiv 0$. – Abezhiko Jan 08 '23 at 15:50
  • Nothing like that :/ – black-phoenix Jan 08 '23 at 22:40
  • However, if I can show that $p_{n-1}$ has a root at k=0, then it would make sens I guess. – black-phoenix Jan 08 '23 at 22:46