Geometrical interpretation for the sum of factorial numbers
I am in need of a way to represent the sum
$1! + 2! + 3! + 4! = 1 + 2 + 6 + 24 = 33$
in a geometrical way. What I mean by this is that for example, the sum
$1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 = 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 = 30$
can be represented geometrically as a pyramid with layers consisting of 1, 4, 9 and 16 pieces respectively a regular manner. Image from Wikipedia to illustrate the geometrical construction of the square numbers.
I have tried to find such a regular pattern to construct a geometrical shape from the factorial numbers, but to no avail. How could this be done?
Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number $n!$, instead of ending at $4!$ as stated in this question above? (less important, but interesting nonetheless)
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: The probably most important part is that the 1, 2, 6 and 24 are discrete and somewhat separated from each other, kind of like the different layers in the comparison between te sum of squares (see linked image above).
geometry factorial geometric-interpretation
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
add a comment |
I am in need of a way to represent the sum
$1! + 2! + 3! + 4! = 1 + 2 + 6 + 24 = 33$
in a geometrical way. What I mean by this is that for example, the sum
$1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 = 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 = 30$
can be represented geometrically as a pyramid with layers consisting of 1, 4, 9 and 16 pieces respectively a regular manner. Image from Wikipedia to illustrate the geometrical construction of the square numbers.
I have tried to find such a regular pattern to construct a geometrical shape from the factorial numbers, but to no avail. How could this be done?
Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number $n!$, instead of ending at $4!$ as stated in this question above? (less important, but interesting nonetheless)
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: The probably most important part is that the 1, 2, 6 and 24 are discrete and somewhat separated from each other, kind of like the different layers in the comparison between te sum of squares (see linked image above).
geometry factorial geometric-interpretation
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
Why not use a triangle? Place a column of $1$s at the right. Starting from the second row, place a column of $2$s to the left of the column of $1$s. Repeat the column construction until you get to $n$ which should be a column of length one.
– John Douma
Nov 30 at 19:45
@JohnDouma I am not quite sure how this would produce something connected to factorial sums? Thank you for your comment. Would I have first 4 1:s, then 3 2:s, 2 3:s, 1 4:s? That makes a sum of 20.
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:13
add a comment |
I am in need of a way to represent the sum
$1! + 2! + 3! + 4! = 1 + 2 + 6 + 24 = 33$
in a geometrical way. What I mean by this is that for example, the sum
$1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 = 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 = 30$
can be represented geometrically as a pyramid with layers consisting of 1, 4, 9 and 16 pieces respectively a regular manner. Image from Wikipedia to illustrate the geometrical construction of the square numbers.
I have tried to find such a regular pattern to construct a geometrical shape from the factorial numbers, but to no avail. How could this be done?
Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number $n!$, instead of ending at $4!$ as stated in this question above? (less important, but interesting nonetheless)
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: The probably most important part is that the 1, 2, 6 and 24 are discrete and somewhat separated from each other, kind of like the different layers in the comparison between te sum of squares (see linked image above).
geometry factorial geometric-interpretation
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
I am in need of a way to represent the sum
$1! + 2! + 3! + 4! = 1 + 2 + 6 + 24 = 33$
in a geometrical way. What I mean by this is that for example, the sum
$1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2 + 4^2 = 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 = 30$
can be represented geometrically as a pyramid with layers consisting of 1, 4, 9 and 16 pieces respectively a regular manner. Image from Wikipedia to illustrate the geometrical construction of the square numbers.
I have tried to find such a regular pattern to construct a geometrical shape from the factorial numbers, but to no avail. How could this be done?
Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number $n!$, instead of ending at $4!$ as stated in this question above? (less important, but interesting nonetheless)
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: The probably most important part is that the 1, 2, 6 and 24 are discrete and somewhat separated from each other, kind of like the different layers in the comparison between te sum of squares (see linked image above).
geometry factorial geometric-interpretation
geometry factorial geometric-interpretation
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
edited Nov 30 at 20:18
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
asked Nov 30 at 19:25
Sigfrid Stjärnholm
434
434
Why not use a triangle? Place a column of $1$s at the right. Starting from the second row, place a column of $2$s to the left of the column of $1$s. Repeat the column construction until you get to $n$ which should be a column of length one.
– John Douma
Nov 30 at 19:45
@JohnDouma I am not quite sure how this would produce something connected to factorial sums? Thank you for your comment. Would I have first 4 1:s, then 3 2:s, 2 3:s, 1 4:s? That makes a sum of 20.
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:13
add a comment |
Why not use a triangle? Place a column of $1$s at the right. Starting from the second row, place a column of $2$s to the left of the column of $1$s. Repeat the column construction until you get to $n$ which should be a column of length one.
– John Douma
Nov 30 at 19:45
@JohnDouma I am not quite sure how this would produce something connected to factorial sums? Thank you for your comment. Would I have first 4 1:s, then 3 2:s, 2 3:s, 1 4:s? That makes a sum of 20.
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:13
Why not use a triangle? Place a column of $1$s at the right. Starting from the second row, place a column of $2$s to the left of the column of $1$s. Repeat the column construction until you get to $n$ which should be a column of length one.
– John Douma
Nov 30 at 19:45
Why not use a triangle? Place a column of $1$s at the right. Starting from the second row, place a column of $2$s to the left of the column of $1$s. Repeat the column construction until you get to $n$ which should be a column of length one.
– John Douma
Nov 30 at 19:45
@JohnDouma I am not quite sure how this would produce something connected to factorial sums? Thank you for your comment. Would I have first 4 1:s, then 3 2:s, 2 3:s, 1 4:s? That makes a sum of 20.
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:13
@JohnDouma I am not quite sure how this would produce something connected to factorial sums? Thank you for your comment. Would I have first 4 1:s, then 3 2:s, 2 3:s, 1 4:s? That makes a sum of 20.
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:13
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The only idea I could come up with was counting the number of vertices in a tree graph that had branching ratios of $2, 3, 4, ldots$, so that the number of vertices on each level were $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.
If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):
Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):
Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:
The answer to your question "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above?" is:
$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
1
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
1
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
|
show 2 more comments
Polynomial functions of degree $d$ can be represented in a space of $d$ dimensions, using segments, squares, cubes then hypercubes. For example, the square pyramidal numbers can be sketeched in 3D as a stack of squares.
This does not generalize to factorials as they are of "unbounded degree" and would require an unbounded number of dimensions.
Even if you find a trick to limit the number of dimensions, the value of the numbers quickly becomes unmanageable ($10!=3628800$).
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020533%2fgeometrical-interpretation-for-the-sum-of-factorial-numbers%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
The only idea I could come up with was counting the number of vertices in a tree graph that had branching ratios of $2, 3, 4, ldots$, so that the number of vertices on each level were $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.
If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):
Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):
Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:
The answer to your question "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above?" is:
$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
1
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
1
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
|
show 2 more comments
The only idea I could come up with was counting the number of vertices in a tree graph that had branching ratios of $2, 3, 4, ldots$, so that the number of vertices on each level were $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.
If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):
Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):
Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:
The answer to your question "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above?" is:
$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
1
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
1
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
|
show 2 more comments
The only idea I could come up with was counting the number of vertices in a tree graph that had branching ratios of $2, 3, 4, ldots$, so that the number of vertices on each level were $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.
If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):
Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):
Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:
The answer to your question "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above?" is:
$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
The only idea I could come up with was counting the number of vertices in a tree graph that had branching ratios of $2, 3, 4, ldots$, so that the number of vertices on each level were $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.
If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):
Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):
Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:
The answer to your question "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above?" is:
$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
edited Dec 1 at 1:16
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
answered Nov 30 at 19:30
David G. Stork
9,77921232
9,77921232
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
1
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
1
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
|
show 2 more comments
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
1
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
1
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 at 19:35
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 at 19:39
1
1
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
@MPW: "Also, a follow up question: Is there a way to represent the factorial numbers up to an arbitrary number n!, instead of ending at 4! as stated in this question above? "
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 19:40
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
Thank you for your response! This gives me the sum of the factorial numbers up to a certain point k, and in my case I want k = 4. I see your argument that it would be hard to find such a geometric interpretation of factorial sums, but if we limit the value of k to 4, only considering 4!, is it not possible that for such small values of factorial there would exist a beautiful and simple interpretation as it did for the squares?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:02
1
1
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
@SigfridStjärnholm: Well, not precisely a fractal because the branching ratio changes at each level... hence the graph is not self-similar.
– David G. Stork
Nov 30 at 22:46
|
show 2 more comments
Polynomial functions of degree $d$ can be represented in a space of $d$ dimensions, using segments, squares, cubes then hypercubes. For example, the square pyramidal numbers can be sketeched in 3D as a stack of squares.
This does not generalize to factorials as they are of "unbounded degree" and would require an unbounded number of dimensions.
Even if you find a trick to limit the number of dimensions, the value of the numbers quickly becomes unmanageable ($10!=3628800$).
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
add a comment |
Polynomial functions of degree $d$ can be represented in a space of $d$ dimensions, using segments, squares, cubes then hypercubes. For example, the square pyramidal numbers can be sketeched in 3D as a stack of squares.
This does not generalize to factorials as they are of "unbounded degree" and would require an unbounded number of dimensions.
Even if you find a trick to limit the number of dimensions, the value of the numbers quickly becomes unmanageable ($10!=3628800$).
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
add a comment |
Polynomial functions of degree $d$ can be represented in a space of $d$ dimensions, using segments, squares, cubes then hypercubes. For example, the square pyramidal numbers can be sketeched in 3D as a stack of squares.
This does not generalize to factorials as they are of "unbounded degree" and would require an unbounded number of dimensions.
Even if you find a trick to limit the number of dimensions, the value of the numbers quickly becomes unmanageable ($10!=3628800$).
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
Polynomial functions of degree $d$ can be represented in a space of $d$ dimensions, using segments, squares, cubes then hypercubes. For example, the square pyramidal numbers can be sketeched in 3D as a stack of squares.
This does not generalize to factorials as they are of "unbounded degree" and would require an unbounded number of dimensions.
Even if you find a trick to limit the number of dimensions, the value of the numbers quickly becomes unmanageable ($10!=3628800$).
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
answered Nov 30 at 19:48
Yves Daoust
124k671221
124k671221
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
add a comment |
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
Ah, i see! Would there however be some sort of way to represent just up to 4!, if ignoring the general case?
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 19:59
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3020533%2fgeometrical-interpretation-for-the-sum-of-factorial-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Why not use a triangle? Place a column of $1$s at the right. Starting from the second row, place a column of $2$s to the left of the column of $1$s. Repeat the column construction until you get to $n$ which should be a column of length one.
– John Douma
Nov 30 at 19:45
@JohnDouma I am not quite sure how this would produce something connected to factorial sums? Thank you for your comment. Would I have first 4 1:s, then 3 2:s, 2 3:s, 1 4:s? That makes a sum of 20.
– Sigfrid Stjärnholm
Nov 30 at 20:13