filifa/dairydemon.net
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

add footnote

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
filifa
2026-06-10 18:42:18 -04:00
parent 4a31fd3f4a
commit 193a2ac033
1 changed files with 16 additions and 7 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
junk/faulhaber/faulhaber.html
+16 -7
View File
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
<hgroup>
<h1>Sums of Powers</h1>
<p>Posted <time datetime="2026-04-15">April 15, 2026</time></p>
<p>Updated <time datetime="2026-06-10">June 10, 2026</time></p>
</hgroup>
<p>This page is all about how we can efficiently compute large sums of
@@ -402,7 +403,7 @@
<p>This algorithm is quadratic in the value of
<math><mi>p</mi></math>, which isn't great, but it's simple to
implement (and I don't know of any faster way).</p>
implement.<sup>1</sup></p>
<section>
<h4>Stirling numbers calculator</h4>
@@ -460,7 +461,7 @@
<p>It turns out there is a very elegant identity relating
exponents, Stirling numbers, and falling
factorials:<sup>1</sup></p>
factorials:<sup>2</sup></p>
<div class="math-block">
<math display="block">
<mrow>
@@ -836,8 +837,8 @@
</math>
</div>
<p>(For <math><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn></math>, the sum is
just <math><mi>n</mi></math>.)<sup>2</sup> This lets us
simplify.<sup>3</sup></p>
just <math><mi>n</mi></math>.)<sup>3</sup> This lets us
simplify.<sup>4</sup></p>
<div class="math-block">
<math display="block">
@@ -1057,13 +1058,21 @@
<section>
<h2>Footnotes</h2>
<ol id="footnote-list">
<li><sup>1</sup> For proofs of this identity, see chapter 1.9 of
<li><sup>1</sup> I think we can technically compute all the Stirling
numbers we need in linearithmic time by applying the convolution
theorem to the numbers' explicit sum formula, but that approach
makes it difficult to get exact values. If you just want the
Stirling numbers modulo a prime, you could maybe use a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Fourier_transform_over_a_ring">number-theoretic transform</a>,
but that's well outside my wheelhouse so I'm not going to touch
on that here.</li>
<li><sup>2</sup> For proofs of this identity, see chapter 1.9 of
<cite>Enumerative Combinatorics</cite> by Stanley and chapter 6.1
of <cite>Concrete Mathematics</cite> by Graham, Knuth, and
Patashnik.</li>
<li><sup>2</sup> See chapter 2.6 of <cite>Concrete
<li><sup>3</sup> See chapter 2.6 of <cite>Concrete
Mathematics</cite> for an explanation of this identity.</li>
<li><sup>3</sup> A version of this formula is also mentioned in
<li><sup>4</sup> A version of this formula is also mentioned in
chapter 6.5 of <cite>Concrete Mathematics</cite>.</li>
</ol>
</section>