Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Summa Summarum: Moessner's Theorem without Dynamic Programming

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Moessner's theorem reduces to a single nested-sum identity whose index-dependent upper bounds equal $(x+1)^n$, with tuned bounds yielding binomial, Catalan, and factorial numbers.

desk verdict A clean reformulation of Moessner's theorem as nested sums, with several new-looking identities, but the central Theorem 1 is asserted rather than proved in the text. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03127 v1 pith:SLCACQMB submitted 2024-12-04 cs.DM cs.LOcs.PLcs.SC

Olivier Danvy (National University of Singapore) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DMcs.LOcs.PLcs.SC MSC 05A1011B6511B83
keywords Moessner'stheoremprocessnestedsummationsdynamicprogrammingintegralpowersfactorialnumbersCatalanpolygonal
topics The Collatz Conjecture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that Moessner's process—the seventy-year-old additive routine that turns the constant stream of ones into the stream of $n$-th powers by repeatedly striking out elements and taking prefix sums—is dynamic programming wrapped around a simpler core of nested summations. The central identity is that for all natural $x$ and $n$, $\sum_{i_1=0}^{x} \sum_{i_2=0}^{\lfloor 2 i_1/1 \rfloor} \cdots \sum_{i_n=0}^{\lfloor n i_{n-1}/(n-1) \rfloor} 1 = (x+1)^n$, with the equivalent upper-bound form $i_k + \lfloor i_k/k \rfloor$. If this is right, the "how" and "why" of Moessner's theorem are answered without streams or memoization: the power comes from index-dependent upper bounds, and dynamic programming is only an implementation strategy. The same tuning produces new additive characterizations of factorials, binomial coefficients, Catalan numbers, Fibonacci and Euler numbers, and polygonal numbers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the elision function $g\,j\,x = \lfloor (j+1)x/j \rfloor$ (also written $x + \lfloor x/j \rfloor$), which encodes the periodical strike-out phase as an index transformation. It supplies the upper bound of each inner sum in the nested-sum identity; iterating it $n$ times produces the "fractionally increasing upper bounds" of Theorem 1. The paper's central identity is that the $n$-fold nested sum with these bounds equals $(x+1)^n$, and the same function, parameterized differently, yields its corollaries.

What would settle it

Directly compute the left-hand nested sum with upper bounds $\lfloor 2i_1/1 \rfloor, \lfloor 3i_2/2 \rfloor, \dots, \lfloor n i_{n-1}/(n-1) \rfloor$ for $n=6$ and $x=3$: if the value is not $4^6 = 4096$, the identity is false, and the finite computation settles it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that Moessner's process is a dynamic program, and that removing its memoization infrastructure exposes a streamless statement of Moessner's theorem: an $n$-fold nested prefix sum whose $k$-th inner upper bound is the elision function $g$ applied to the previous index equals $(x+1)^n$. The elision function $g\,j\,x = \lfloor (j+1)x/j \rfloor$ (equivalently $x + \lfloor x/j \rfloor$) reproduces the strike-out phase as an index transformation, so each nested sum is a pure instance of repeated addition. The paper further claims that "Moessner's magic"—the dependence of inner upper bounds on outer indices—is exactly what accounts for the transitory rational arithmetic when Catalan numbers are computed this way, and that varying $g$ generates factorials, binomial coefficients, Catalan numbers, Fibonacci and Euler numbers, and a new characterization of polygonal numbers as bounded sums of increasing quotients.

Load-bearing premise

The article assumes that the elision function $g\,j\,x = \lfloor (j+1)x/j \rfloor$ exactly encodes the strike-out phase and that the nested-sum equality to $(x+1)^n$ holds for every $n$, but the general proof of that equality is not carried out in the text, which illustrates $n=0$ through $5$ and otherwise relies on the original theorem and the accompanying formalization file.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Computing $(x+1)^n$ requires no multiplication: it is $n$ nested summations, each of which is just repeated addition.
  • Moessner's stream-based process is one particular memoized implementation of a simple recursive summation function; removing the memoization does not change the result.
  • Tuning the upper bounds yields additive definitions of binomial coefficients, Catalan numbers, factorial numbers, Fibonacci and Euler numbers, and polygonal numbers.
  • The same machinery re-expresses any finite product $\prod_{i=0}^{n} f(i)$ as a nested sum, so the slide-rule correspondence becomes a direct identity.
  • Reintroducing memoization gives a dynamic program computing powers with $x \cdot n(n+1)/2$ additions instead of $(x+1)^n$ additions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not in the paper: if the central identity holds for all $n$, the same index-dependent upper-bound schema could be tuned against other known sequences to discover new nested-sum characterizations, since Section 7 already finds several by varying $g$.
  • Not in the paper: the paper's distinction between primitive iteration and primitive recursion suggests a broader claim that any dynamic program with overlapping subcomputations forming a simple lattice can be exactly reverse-engineered into a nested sum.
  • A testable extension is to replace the fractional upper bound $\lfloor (j+1)x/j \rfloor$ by other rational functions of $x$ and $j$ and search for closed forms, as the polygonal-number corollary shows the pattern is fertile.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a "streamless" reformulation of Moessner's theorem: instead of iterating Moessner's strike-out-and-prefix-sum process on streams, one evaluates a nested summation whose kth upper bound is floor((k+1) i_k / k). The central statement, Theorem 1 in Section 5, claims that this nested sum, and also the equivalent variant with upper bound i_k + floor(i_k/k), equals (x+1)^n for all natural x and n. The paper also gives a Scheme implementation (moessner and its parameterized variants), derives numerous corollaries (binomial coefficients, Catalan numbers, Fibonacci numbers, Euler numbers, factorial numbers, polygonal numbers, etc.), discusses dynamic-programming versions, and includes Appendix C with a new characterization of polygonal numbers. The exposition is lively and the small cases are worked carefully, but the central theorem is not proved in the text: only the cases n ≤ 5 are unrolled, and the only general induction supplied is for a degenerate constant filtering function that does not encode Moessner's strike-out phase.

Significance. If Theorem 1 were fully proved, the paper would provide a genuinely simpler statement of Moessner's theorem, reduce the process to nested summations with index-dependent bounds, and support a clean counting of the number of additions. The pedagogical value is high: the paper makes visible why the upper bounds depend on outer indices, and the corollaries are attractive. The author is also commendably explicit in Appendix C about what the polygonal-number characterization does and does not buy. However, at present the central identity is asserted rather than derived, and the Coq artifact mentioned in Appendix B is not supplied. The significance is therefore conditional on completing the proof and making the formalization available.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, Theorem 1] Theorem 1 is the load-bearing assertion of the paper, but no proof is given for arbitrary n. Section 3.4 unfolds the streamless process only for n = 0 through 5, and Section 5 states the general equality directly. The equality with (x+1)^n is exactly the content of Moessner's theorem, whose earlier proofs are cited but not re-derived. The author needs either a self-contained proof by induction (or a precise reduction to a cited theorem) that the nested sum with upper bounds floor((j+1)i_j/j) equals the final stream of Moessner's process for all n.
  2. [Section 7.4] The only general induction in the paper proves Corollary 14, which treats the constant filtering function (lambda (j _) x), not the elision function g = lambda j x. floor((j+1)x/j) of Definition 1. The text explicitly calls this 'Moessner's theorem without dynamic programming, simpler' and shows that the constant case is a routine induction. This does not license Theorem 1, because the constant case has no index-dependent upper bounds and does not model the strike-out phase. The paper should state clearly that Corollary 14 is a separate, weaker statement.
  3. [Appendix B] Appendix B says the accompanying .v file contains a Coq formalization of 'part of' the executive summary, Section 5, Section 6, and Section 9, but the artifact is not supplied with the preprint and the text never specifies whether it covers Theorem 1. Since Theorem 1 is the central claim, the absence of the formalization, and even of a precise statement of what was proved, leaves the main result without machine-checked support. If the formalization covers Theorem 1, it should be included or made accessible, and the corresponding statement should be identified.
  4. [Sections 3.4 and 5] The paper does not explicitly prove that iterating prefix sums with the elision function g exactly reproduces the stream process of Moessner for arbitrary n. The unrolling in Section 3.4 is suggestive, but a formal lemma connecting the two formulations is missing. Without such a lemma, Theorem 1 remains a reformulation with the same unproved status as the original theorem; the reader cannot tell whether the equality to powers is being assumed or derived.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The executive summary uses floor notation, while the main text writes expressions such as 2·i1/1 and 3·i2/2 without an explicit floor. Since Definition 1 uses integer division, the paper should state once that all displayed divisions in nested sums are integer divisions, so that the notation is unambiguous.
  2. [Section 2.2] The claim that Bickford's Nuprl formalization is 'the first formalization of Moessner's theorem and of its proof' appears to contradict the immediately preceding description of Krebbers, Parlant, and Silva's Coq formalization from 2016. This should be rephrased or qualified.
  3. [Executive Summary / Section 5] The Euler-number corollary uses upper bounds such as 1 − i_{n−2} and 0 − i_{n−1}, which can be negative for small n and for large inner indices. The paper should specify the convention for summation when the upper bound is less than the lower bound, or state the range of n for which the display is intended.
  4. [Appendix A] Appendix A promises an accompanying .scm file with an implementation and tests, but the file is not part of the visible submission. The paper should state how the reader can obtain the artifact, and should note that the artifact was not available to the reviewer.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 1 is a streamless restatement of Moessner's theorem whose general proof is not given; the paper's central equality is imported from the original theorem and from the author's earlier paper [8].

  1. renaming known result [Section 5 (Theorem 1, and the sentence immediately before it)]
    "And so independently of dynamic programming, the essence of Moessner’s theorem is nested summations (as many nested summations as the degree of the result) with fractionally increasing upper bounds: Theorem 1 (Moessner’s theorem without dynamic programming). ∀x : N, ∀n : N, ... = ( x + 1)n"

    Theorem 1 is not derived from the nested sums in the text. The sentence immediately before it identifies the equality as 'Moessner’s theorem is the last equality in each member of this family of equalities', so the new displays are a transcription of the already-known Moessner theorem. Section 3.4 only unfolds examples for n ≤ 5, and Section 7.4 proves a general induction only for the constant-filtering variant (lambda (j _) x), not for the fractional-index upper bounds of Theorem 1. Thus the claimed equality to (x+1)^n is the original theorem in new coordinates, not an independent first-principles derivation.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4.2 (paragraph after the table for k)]
    "Earlier on [8], the author observed that in Moessner’s process, the parts of the stream that are filtered out enumerate the successive monomials of the binomial expansion of ((x + 1) +1)n – which explains why the elements standing in the resulting stream enumerate(x + 1)n, an alternative proof of Moessner’s theorem revisited in Section 5."

    The 'key observation' on which Section 5 bases its family of equalities and hence Theorem 1 is attributed to the author's own earlier paper [8]. Section 5 lists only the small cases n = 0..4 and then states the general theorem without supplying the promised alternative proof. So the load-bearing step that the filtered-out parts enumerate binomial monomials is deferred to a self-citation rather than established in the present text.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is Theorem 1, which asserts that a family of nested sums with index-dependent upper bounds equals (x+1)^n. The paper does not prove this theorem for general n: it gives unfolding examples for n up to 5, states the general case, and later proves by induction only the simpler constant-filtering version (Corollary 14), which is not the fractional-index identity of Theorem 1. The equality to powers is therefore inherited from the classical Moessner theorem and from the author's earlier observation in [8]. This makes Theorem 1 largely a renaming/restatement of a known result in streamless, nested-sum coordinates rather than an independent derivation. That is the 'renaming known result' pattern. In addition, the key explanatory observation about filtered-out monomials is explicitly sourced to the author's own prior work [8] and is load-bearing because no proof of the general theorem appears in the article. I do not assign a higher score because the paper is transparent that this is Moessner's theorem, and several surrounding contributions (binomial coefficients, factorials, Catalan numbers, polygonal numbers, the dynamic-programming cost analysis) have independent or external support and are not fitted results. The missing proof and the non-included Coq file are correctness risks, but the circularity proper is the reduction of the central theorem to the cited theorem and self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no fitted constants and no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The central claim rests on the correctness of the prior Moessner theorem, on the faithfulness of g as a model of the strike-out phase, and on standard arithmetic and Scheme evaluation. The proof gap for Theorem 1 is the main unresolved axiom.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The original Moessner theorem is true: the iterative strike-out and prefix-sum process starting from [1,1,1,...] yields [1^n,2^n,3^n,...].
    The paper's Theorem 1 is a streamless restatement; Section 5 gives examples but no general proof, and the only general induction offered in Section 7.4 covers the degenerate constant-filtering case.
  • domain assumption The elision function g(j,x)=floor((j+1)*x/j) faithfully models the filtering-out phase of Moessner's process, and iterated summation models the repeated strike-out plus prefix-sum iterations.
    Definition 1 and Section 3.4 assume this translation from streams to functions; it is plausible and checked on examples, but not proved as a general equivalence in the text.
  • domain assumption The Scheme procedures Sigma, moessner, moessner-fold, and their variants correctly implement natural-number summation and the described recurrences.
    The paper relies on Scheme evaluation for its implementation theorems; the code is printed, but no machine-checked semantics are supplied in the preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Summa Summarum: Moessner's Theorem without Dynamic Programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLCACQMB

@misc{pith2026241203127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Summa Summarum: Moessner's Theorem without Dynamic Programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLCACQMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03127}
}
read the original abstract

Seventy years on, Moessner's theorem and Moessner's process -- i.e., the additive computation of integral powers -- continue to fascinate. They have given rise to a variety of elegant proofs, to an implementation in hardware, to generalizations, and now even to a popular video, "The Moessner Miracle.'' The existence of this video, and even more its title, indicate that while the "what'' of Moessner's process is understood, its "how'' and even more its "why'' are still elusive. And indeed all the proofs of Moessner's theorem involve more complicated concepts than both the theorem and the process. This article identifies that Moessner's process implements an additive function with dynamic programming. A version of this implementation without dynamic programming (1) gives rise to a simpler statement of Moessner's theorem and (2) can be abstracted and then instantiated into related additive computations. The simpler statement also suggests a simpler and more efficient implementation to compute integral powers as well as simple additive functions to compute, e.g., Factorial numbers. It also reveals the source of -- to quote John Conway and Richard Guy -- Moessner's magic.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/ classes/202/notes.pdf

    James Aspnes (2022): Notes on Discrete Mathematics . https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/ classes/202/notes.pdf. 85

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Mathematische Semester- berichte 66, pp

    Michael Heinrich Baumann (2018): Die k-dimensionale Champagnerpyramide . Mathematische Semester- berichte 66, pp. 89–100, doi:10.1007/s00591-018-00236-x. 84

    work page doi:10.1007/s00591-018-00236-x 2018

  3. [3]

    Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming 124, p

    Mark Bickford, Dexter Kozen & Alexandra Silva (2022): F ormalizing Moessner’s Theorem and Gen- eralizations in Nuprl . Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming 124, p. 100713, doi:10.1016/j.jlamp.2021.100713. 64, 78

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Science of Computer Programming 16, pp

    Anders Bondorf & Olivier Danvy (1991): Automatic Autoprojection of Recursive Equations with Global V ariables and Abstract Data Types. Science of Computer Programming 16, pp. 151–195, doi:10.1016/0167- 6423(91)90035-V. 77

    doi:10.1016/0167- 1991

  5. [5]

    Burge (1975): Recursive Programming Techniques

    William H. Burge (1975): Recursive Programming Techniques. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-14450-5. 83

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    Burstall & John Darlington (1977): A Transformational System for Developing Recursive Programs

    Rod M. Burstall & John Darlington (1977): A Transformational System for Developing Recursive Programs. Journal of the ACM 24(1), pp. 44–67, doi:10.1145/321992.321996. 61

    arXiv 1977

  7. [7]

    Princeton University Press

    Alonzo Church (1941): The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion . Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691- 08394-0. 59, 77

    work page 1941

  8. [8]

    Theoret- ical Computer Science 546, pp

    Christian Clausen, Olivier Danvy & Moe Masuko (2014): A Characterization of Moessner’s Sieve . Theoret- ical Computer Science 546, pp. 244–256, doi:10.1016/J.TCS.2014.03.012. 62, 64, 69

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2014.03.012 2014

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    In Susan L

    Charles Consel & Olivier Danvy (1993): Tutorial Notes on Partial Evaluation . In Susan L. Graham, editor: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages , ACM Press, Charleston, South Carolina, pp. 493–501, doi:10.1145/158511.158707. 77

    1993

  2. [11]

    Conway & Richard K

    John H. Conway & Richard K. Guy (1996): The Polygonal Numbers. In: The Book of Numbers , Springer, pp. 38–42, doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4072-3. 91

    1996 doi

  3. [12]

    Cormen, Charles E

    Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest & Clifford Stein (2001): Introduction to Algo- rithms, second edition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 978-0-262-04630-5. 60

    2001

  4. [13]

    Journal of Functional Programming 33(e2), doi:10.1017/S0956796822000156

    Olivier Danvy (2023): F olding Left and Right Matters: Direct Style, Accumulators, and Continuations . Journal of Functional Programming 33(e2), doi:10.1017/S0956796822000156. 73, 79, 85

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    In Mayur Naik, Fernando Magno Quintão Pereira & Ben L

    Olivier Danvy (2024): Nested Summations . In Mayur Naik, Fernando Magno Quintão Pereira & Ben L. Titzer, editors: Workshop Dedicated to Jens Palsberg on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (JENSFEST 2024), Pasadena, California, doi:10.1145/3694848.3694858. ACM 979-8-4007-1257-9/...

    2024

  6. [15]

    World Scientific, doi:10.1142/8188

    Elena Deza & Michel Marie Deza (2012): Figurate Numbers. World Scientific, doi:10.1142/8188. 91

    2012 doi

  7. [16]

    II: Diophantine Analysis

    Leonard Eugene Dixon (1920): History of the Theory of Numbers, V ol. II: Diophantine Analysis . Carnegie Institution of Washington. 91

    1920

  8. [17]

    Kent Dybvig (1996): The Scheme Programming Language , second edition

    R. Kent Dybvig (1996): The Scheme Programming Language , second edition. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0- 262-51298-5. 59

    1996

  9. [18]

    Friedman & David S

    Daniel P. Friedman & David S. Wise (1976): CONS Should Not Evaluate its Arguments . In S. Michael- son & Robin Milner, editors: Third International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming , Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 257–284. 60

    1976

  10. [19]

    Scripta Mathematica 13, p

    Albert Gloden (1947): Moessner Triplets. Scripta Mathematica 13, p. 58. 63

    1947

  11. [20]

    Graham, Donald E

    Ronald L. Graham, Donald E. Knuth & Oren Patashnik (1994):Concrete Mathematics, 2nd edition. Addison- Wesley. ISBN 0-201-55802-5. 59

    1994

  12. [21]

    Grimaldi (2012): Fibonacci and Catalan Numbers – An Introduction

    Ralph P. Grimaldi (2012): Fibonacci and Catalan Numbers – An Introduction . John Wiley and Sons, doi:10.1002/9781118159743. ISBN 978-0-470-63157-7. 81, 86 O. Danvy 89

    2012 doi

  13. [22]

    Ralf Hinze (2008): Scans and Convolutions – A Calculational Proof of Moessner’s Theorem . In Sven- Bodo Scholz & Olaf Chitil, editors: Implementation and Application of Functional Languages, 20th Inter- national Workshop, IFL 2008 , Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5836, Spri...

    2008 doi

  14. [23]

    Journal of Functional Programming 20(5-6), pp

    Ralf Hinze (2011): Concrete Stream Calculus – An Extended Study . Journal of Functional Programming 20(5-6), pp. 463–535, doi:10.1017/S0956796810000213. 64, 78, 81

    2011 doi

  15. [24]

    The Dolciani Mathematical Exposition 10, The Mathematical Association of America, doi:10.1090/dol/010

    Ross Honsberger (1991): More Mathematical Morsels . The Dolciani Mathematical Exposition 10, The Mathematical Association of America, doi:10.1090/dol/010. ISBN 978-1-4704-5838-6. 63, 64

    1991 doi

  16. [25]

    Kleene (1952): Introduction to Metamathematics

    Stephen C. Kleene (1952): Introduction to Metamathematics. Bibliotheca Mathematica, North-Holland Pub- lishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ISBN 978-0-7204-2103-3. 77

    1952

  17. [26]

    The American Mathematical Monthly 120(2), pp

    Dexter Kozen & Alexandra Silva (2013): On Moessner’s Theorem . The American Mathematical Monthly 120(2), pp. 131–139, doi:10.4169/amer.math.monthly.120.02.131. 64, 78

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    In Erika Ábrahám, Marcello M

    Robbert Krebbers, Louis Parlant & Alexandra Silva (2016): Moessner’s Theorem: An Exercise in Coinduc- tive Reasoning in Coq . In Erika Ábrahám, Marcello M. Bonsangue & Einar Broch Johnsen, editors: Theory and Practice of Formal Methods - Essays Dedicated to Frank de Boer on th...

    2016 doi

  19. [28]

    In: The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

    Chams Lahlou (2019): A formula for some integer sequences that can be described by generating trees . In: The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/A002449/a002449.pdf. 87

    2019

  20. [29]

    Long (1966): On the Moessner Theorem on Integral Powers

    Calvin T. Long (1966): On the Moessner Theorem on Integral Powers. The American Mathematical Monthly 73(8), pp. 846–851, doi:10.1080/00029890.1966.11970851. 62, 64, 74, 75, 78

    1966

  21. [30]

    Long (1982): Mathematical Excitement—The Most Effective Motivation

    Calvin T. Long (1982): Mathematical Excitement—The Most Effective Motivation. The Mathematics Teacher 75(5), pp. 413–415, doi:10.5951/MT.75.5.0413. 64

    1982 doi

  22. [31]

    Long (1982): Strike It Out—Add It Up

    Calvin T. Long (1982): Strike It Out—Add It Up . The Mathematical Gazette 66(428), pp. 273–277, doi:10.2307/3615513. 64, 66

    1982 doi

  23. [32]

    Long (1986): A Note On Moessner’s Process

    Calvin T. Long (1986): A Note On Moessner’s Process . The Fibonacci Quarterly 24(4), pp. 349–355, doi:10.1080/00150517.1986.12429746. 64, 76, 78

    1986

  24. [33]

    Scripta Mathematica 8, p

    Alfred Moessner (1941): Triplets Again. Scripta Mathematica 8, p. 14. 63

    1941

  25. [34]

    Scripta Mathematica 13, p

    Alfred Moessner (1947): Curiosa 161: A Curious Magic Square . Scripta Mathematica 13, p. 234. 63

    1947

  26. [35]

    Aus den Sitzungs- berichten der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 29(3), p

    Alfred Moessner (1951): Eine Bemerkung über die Potenzen der natürlichen Zahlen . Aus den Sitzungs- berichten der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 29(3), p. 9. 58, 62, 63

    1951

  27. [36]

    Scripta Mathematica 18(3–4), p

    Alfred Moessner (1952): Curiosa 306: All-Prime Magic Squares . Scripta Mathematica 18(3–4), p. 303. 63

    1952

  28. [37]

    zbMATH Open

    Alfred Moessner (2024): Mößner , Alfred. zbMATH Open. Available at https://zbmath.org/authors/ mossner.alfred. 63

    2024

  29. [38]

    Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation 24(3), pp

    Milad Niqui & Jan Rutten (2011): A Proof of Moessner’s Theorem by Coinduction . Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation 24(3), pp. 191–206, doi:10.1007/S10990-012-9082-7. 64

    2011 doi

  30. [39]

    (2023): Entry A000108 (the stream of Catalan numbers)

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): Entry A000108 (the stream of Catalan numbers) . In: The On-Line Encyclo- pedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/A000108. 81

    2023

  31. [40]

    (2023): Entry A000142 (the stream of Factorial numbers)

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): Entry A000142 (the stream of Factorial numbers) . In: The On-Line Encyclo- pedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/A000142. 78

    2023

  32. [41]

    (2023): Entry A000270 (the stream of triangular numbers)

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): Entry A000270 (the stream of triangular numbers) . In: The On-Line Encyclo- pedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/A000270. 92

    2023

  33. [42]

    (2023): Entry A000326 (the stream of pentagonal numbers)

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): Entry A000326 (the stream of pentagonal numbers) . In: The On-Line Ency- clopedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/A000326. 91

    2023

  34. [43]

    (2023): Entry A000384 (the stream of hexagonal numbers)

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): Entry A000384 (the stream of hexagonal numbers) . In: The On-Line Ency- clopedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/A000384. 92 90 Moessner’s Theorem without Dynamic Programming

    2023

  35. [44]

    (2023): Entry A002449

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): Entry A002449. In: The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. https: //oeis.org/A002449. 87

    2023

  36. [45]

    (2023): The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

    OEIS Foundation Inc. (2023): The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences . https://oeis.org/. 64, 72, 81

    2023

  37. [46]

    Aus den Sitzungsberichten der Bay- erischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 30(1), pp

    Ivan Paasche (1952): Ein neuer Beweis des Moessnerschen Satzes . Aus den Sitzungsberichten der Bay- erischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 30(1), pp. 1–5. 62, 63

    1952

  38. [47]

    Zum Satz von Moessner

    Ivan Paasche (1953/54): Ein zahlentheoretische-logarithmischer ‘Rechenstab’. Zum Satz von Moessner . Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht 6, pp. 26–28. 58, 63, 64, 78

    1953

  39. [48]

    Compositio Mathematica 12, pp

    Ivan Paasche (1954-1956): Eine Verallgemeinerung des Moessnerschen Satzes . Compositio Mathematica 12, pp. 263–270. 64

    1954

  40. [49]

    Archiv der Math- ematik 6, pp

    Ivan Paasche (1955): Beweis des Moessnerschen Satzes mittels linearer Transformationen. Archiv der Math- ematik 6, pp. 194–199, doi:10.1007/BF01900739. 63

    1955 doi

  41. [50]

    Aus den Sitzungsberichten der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 29(4), pp

    Oskar Perron (1951): Beweis des Moessnerschen Satzes . Aus den Sitzungsberichten der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 29(4), pp. 31–34. 63

    1951

  42. [51]

    Why wasn’t this discovered for over 2000 years? Math- ologer (short video documentary)

    Burkard Polster (2021): The Moessner Miracle. Why wasn’t this discovered for over 2000 years? Math- ologer (short video documentary). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGlpyFHfMgI&t=235s&ab_ channel=Mathologer. 59

    2021

  43. [52]

    Rosen, editor (2018): Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics , second edition

    Kenneth H. Rosen, editor (2018): Handbook of Discrete and Combinatorial Mathematics , second edition. Chapman & Hall, doi:10.1201/9781315156484. 86

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    Rosen (2019): Discrete Mathematics and its Applications , eighth edition

    Kenneth H. Rosen (2019): Discrete Mathematics and its Applications , eighth edition. McGraw Hill. ISBN 9781584887805. 59, 85, 86

    2019

  45. [54]

    Moessner

    Hans Salié (1952): Bemerkung zu einem Satz von A. Moessner . Aus den Sitzungsberichten der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 30(2), pp. 7–11. 63

    1952

  46. [55]

    Omair Ahmad & M

    Saed Samadi, M. Omair Ahmad & M. N. Shanmukha Swamy (2005): Multiplier-free structures for exact generation of natural powers of integers . In: International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS 2005), IEEE, Kobe, Japan, pp. 1146–1149, doi:10.1109/ISCAS.2005.1464796. 58, 59

    2005 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Slater (1983): Strike It Out—Some Exercises

    John G. Slater (1983): Strike It Out—Some Exercises . The Mathematical Gazette 67(442), pp. 288–290, doi:10.2307/3617270. 64, 66

    1983 doi

  48. [57]

    BSc thesis, Yale-NUS College, Singapore

    Uladzimir Treihis (2024): F ormalizing the Original Proofs of Moessner’s Theorem in the Coq Proof Assistant. BSc thesis, Yale-NUS College, Singapore. 64

    2024

  49. [58]

    MSc thesis, Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University, Arhus, Denmark, doi:10.7146/aul.213.154

    Peter Urbak (2017): A F ormal Study of Moessner’s Sieve . MSc thesis, Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University, Arhus, Denmark, doi:10.7146/aul.213.154. https://ebooks.au.dk/aul/catalog/ book/213. 64

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    In Guy L

    Philip Wadler (1984): Listlessness is better than laziness . In Guy L. Steele Jr., editor: Conference Record of the 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming , ACM Press, Austin, Texas, pp. 282–305, doi:10.1145/800055.802020. 83

    1984

  51. [60]

    Discrete Mathematics 157, pp

    Julian West (1996): Generating Trees and F orbidden Subsequences. Discrete Mathematics 157, pp. 363–374, doi:10.1016/S0012-365X(96)83023-8. 87

    1996 doi

  52. [61]

    The American Mathematical Monthly 66(1), pp

    Jan van Yzeren (1959): A Note on an Additive Property of Natural Numbers . The American Mathematical Monthly 66(1), pp. 53–54, doi:10.2307/2309925. 63, 64 A Content of the accompanying .scm file The accompanying .scm file contains an implementation in Scheme of the whole artic...

    1959 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.