Geometrical interpretation for the sum of factorial numbers












8














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).










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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 '18 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 '18 at 20:13


















8














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).










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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 '18 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 '18 at 20:13
















8












8








8


2





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).










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 30 '18 at 20:18







Sigfrid Stjärnholm

















asked Nov 30 '18 at 19:25









Sigfrid StjärnholmSigfrid 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 20:13












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














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 $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.



n=4 tree layout



If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):



n=6 layout



Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):



enter image description here



Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:



enter image description here



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:



$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
    – tarit goswami
    Nov 30 '18 at 19:35










  • In no way does this answer OP's question.
    – MPW
    Nov 30 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:46



















1














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 ($10!=3628800$).






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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 '18 at 19:59











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









4














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 $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.



n=4 tree layout



If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):



n=6 layout



Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):



enter image description here



Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:



enter image description here



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:



$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
    – tarit goswami
    Nov 30 '18 at 19:35










  • In no way does this answer OP's question.
    – MPW
    Nov 30 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:46
















4














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 $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.



n=4 tree layout



If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):



n=6 layout



Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):



enter image description here



Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:



enter image description here



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:



$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$






share|cite|improve this answer























  • OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
    – tarit goswami
    Nov 30 '18 at 19:35










  • In no way does this answer OP's question.
    – MPW
    Nov 30 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:46














4












4








4






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 $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.



n=4 tree layout



If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):



n=6 layout



Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):



enter image description here



Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:



enter image description here



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:



$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$






share|cite|improve this answer














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 $1!, 2!, 3!, 4!, ldots$.



n=4 tree layout



If you need more layers ($n=6$), you might want a different layout (thanks to @HenrikSchumacher):



n=6 layout



Radial embedding is particularly elegant and helpful too ($n=6$):



enter image description here



Perhaps such a three-dimensional representation would be appropriate:



enter image description here



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:



$$sumlimits_{n=1}^k n! = (-1)^{k+1} Gamma (k+2) text{Subfactorial}[-k-2]-text{Subfactorial}[-1]-1$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 1 '18 at 1:16

























answered Nov 30 '18 at 19:30









David G. StorkDavid G. Stork

10.1k21332




10.1k21332












  • OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
    – tarit goswami
    Nov 30 '18 at 19:35










  • In no way does this answer OP's question.
    – MPW
    Nov 30 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:46


















  • OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
    – tarit goswami
    Nov 30 '18 at 19:35










  • In no way does this answer OP's question.
    – MPW
    Nov 30 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:46
















OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 '18 at 19:35




OP wants to know geometrical interpretation. Is there any geometrical interpretation using this? Please explain :)
– tarit goswami
Nov 30 '18 at 19:35












In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 '18 at 19:39




In no way does this answer OP's question.
– MPW
Nov 30 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 22:46











1














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 ($10!=3628800$).






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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 '18 at 19:59
















1














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 ($10!=3628800$).






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • 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 '18 at 19:59














1












1








1






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 ($10!=3628800$).






share|cite|improve this answer












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 ($10!=3628800$).







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 30 '18 at 19:48









Yves DaoustYves Daoust

124k671222




124k671222












  • 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 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 '18 at 19:59


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

Aardman Animations

Are they similar matrix