Talk:Summation

message: This seems like a trivial thing, but seems to be incorrect in the listing.
The sum of 1 from m to n is n - m + 1, not n - m. A trivial example, sum 1 from 1 to 10,
the answer is not (10 - 1 = 9), it is (10 - 1 + 1 = 10).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.40.239 (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; this is corrected now. As a general rule summation expressions would be simpler if the upper limit in a summation would have been the first value not to include rather than the last value to include, but it's too late to change that convention. Note that n + 1 occurs more frequently in the expressions of the section in question than n (and this is why I wrote n + 1 − m rather than n − m + 1). Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with that "should have been".  Your perspective is one derived from programmers (is it not?) who initiated their own convention long after mathematics had theirs.  Youre assuming one is wrong because youve accepted the other. It's a perfect example of bias. Am I wrong?  Can you justify precisely why the convention *should* have been different without presupposing the other?  NicholasSweeten (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sum of 1, off by 1? 

message: Hello to Wikipedia Community,
This is my first ever Wikipedia talk post.  Please excuse my stupidity!
I am a dumb, ignorant, old guy going back to school to learn math.  So, I  read this article and find the statement "It is possible to sum fewer than 2 numbers".  Really?  That seems, to me, anyway, to violate the logic of a  definition of a sum; a sum means we are adding one value to another value (or more values).  Why would we even bother to try to denote this impossible concept of a sum of one or zero values?  That just does not make sense to me.  Wouldn't we just instead say that the starting conditions "m = n" or "m > n" are just not allowed or undefined, in the same manner as we might say "any value divided by zero is undefined"?  Please explain.
Cheers,
Allan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan.w.macdonald (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You deal with sums of a single number all the time. Every time you go to a store and buy a single item, there's a line on the receipt that says "total" (er, well, "subtotal") with just the price of that one item, right? So the sum of a single item is really not an impossible concept—it's a very useful concept, in fact. —Bkell (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

text: A sum of zero numbers is similar. Imagine that you have a bank account into which you make no deposits for a certain month. At the end of the month you will get a statement from the bank with a line that says something like, "Total deposits $0.00." That's a sum of no numbers! —Bkell (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Its probably best not to think of it as literal adding. Rather, think of it is a convention.  Something formal mathematics has been forced to accept for consistency. Its not without its logic. NicholasSweeten (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less than 2 terms?! 

message: Can you please explain why you removed a bunch of information?  and , what do you think about this? INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 01:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. It would appear that the IP was vandalizing the article INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 02:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I'll  look at the information to see if you're correct, should I have time to do that. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 23:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: Looks like RLGoodwin is doing the work there. INeedSupport(Care free to give me support?) 23:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: I KEEP removing these identities and someone keeps putting them right back in without checking correctness.
Distributivity and factorization on the list are INVALID.  If it doesnt work for a binomial why would anyone assume it worked for an arbitrary series? Hate fighting idiots on wikipedia. If you are weak at math and dont know what youre talking about, and wont even research, then quit contributing. Simple. Im starting to think its malice rather than stupidity.  50.125.86.70 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which identities are wrong and what are the correct identities? Note that in the comments, "distributivity", ... do not mean that the identity makes the property explicit, but rather that this is used for proving the identity. D.Lazard (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect General Identities 

message: Defining a relationship between these two will be good. Yuthfghds (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which relationship have in mind? For the relationship between repeated addition and multiplication, see the second paragraph of Multiplication and Multiplication and repeated addition. D.Lazard (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between summation and repeated multiplication