If $sum(-1)^n+1 frac1n$ can be made to sum to any number then why is it equal to $ln 2$?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have two questions, one is in the title:
If $sum(-1)^n+1 frac1n$ can be made to sum to any number then why it is equal to $ln 2$? Certainly it occurs since the divergence of each of the two subseries (negatives and positives) guarantees that we will always be able to equate that to any desired number but why we choose $ln 2$ instead?
For example, $ln 2 = 1- frac12 + frac13 - frac14 + dots = 1- frac12 - frac14 + + frac13 - frac16 - frac18 + frac15 - dots = frac12 ln 2 $
And second, which necessary and sufficient conditions a series must have to converge to one specific number if it converges to a number at all? And what proof is that for those necessary and sufficient conditions?
real-analysis convergence
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have two questions, one is in the title:
If $sum(-1)^n+1 frac1n$ can be made to sum to any number then why it is equal to $ln 2$? Certainly it occurs since the divergence of each of the two subseries (negatives and positives) guarantees that we will always be able to equate that to any desired number but why we choose $ln 2$ instead?
For example, $ln 2 = 1- frac12 + frac13 - frac14 + dots = 1- frac12 - frac14 + + frac13 - frac16 - frac18 + frac15 - dots = frac12 ln 2 $
And second, which necessary and sufficient conditions a series must have to converge to one specific number if it converges to a number at all? And what proof is that for those necessary and sufficient conditions?
real-analysis convergence
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
why can it be made to sum to any number? Btw the $ln2$ part comes from the Taylor expansion of the logarithm.
– ÎœÎ¬ÃÂκο ΚαÃÂαμÎÂÃÂηÂ
Aug 26 at 19:53
1
If you rearrange the terms you may take any number you want.
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:53
3
See Riemman theorem
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:54
1
A sum $sum_n=1^infty a_n$ is supposed to be summed in a particular order: start with $a_1$ then add $a_2$ then add $a_3$ etc. This converges to $ln(2)$ here. If you change the order you can change the sum if the series if conditionally convergent.
– Winther
Aug 26 at 19:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I have two questions, one is in the title:
If $sum(-1)^n+1 frac1n$ can be made to sum to any number then why it is equal to $ln 2$? Certainly it occurs since the divergence of each of the two subseries (negatives and positives) guarantees that we will always be able to equate that to any desired number but why we choose $ln 2$ instead?
For example, $ln 2 = 1- frac12 + frac13 - frac14 + dots = 1- frac12 - frac14 + + frac13 - frac16 - frac18 + frac15 - dots = frac12 ln 2 $
And second, which necessary and sufficient conditions a series must have to converge to one specific number if it converges to a number at all? And what proof is that for those necessary and sufficient conditions?
real-analysis convergence
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
I have two questions, one is in the title:
If $sum(-1)^n+1 frac1n$ can be made to sum to any number then why it is equal to $ln 2$? Certainly it occurs since the divergence of each of the two subseries (negatives and positives) guarantees that we will always be able to equate that to any desired number but why we choose $ln 2$ instead?
For example, $ln 2 = 1- frac12 + frac13 - frac14 + dots = 1- frac12 - frac14 + + frac13 - frac16 - frac18 + frac15 - dots = frac12 ln 2 $
And second, which necessary and sufficient conditions a series must have to converge to one specific number if it converges to a number at all? And what proof is that for those necessary and sufficient conditions?
real-analysis convergence
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
edited Aug 26 at 20:02
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
4,11331550
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
asked Aug 26 at 19:50
Edi
791829
791829
why can it be made to sum to any number? Btw the $ln2$ part comes from the Taylor expansion of the logarithm.
– ÎœÎ¬ÃÂκο ΚαÃÂαμÎÂÃÂηÂ
Aug 26 at 19:53
1
If you rearrange the terms you may take any number you want.
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:53
3
See Riemman theorem
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:54
1
A sum $sum_n=1^infty a_n$ is supposed to be summed in a particular order: start with $a_1$ then add $a_2$ then add $a_3$ etc. This converges to $ln(2)$ here. If you change the order you can change the sum if the series if conditionally convergent.
– Winther
Aug 26 at 19:55
add a comment |Â
why can it be made to sum to any number? Btw the $ln2$ part comes from the Taylor expansion of the logarithm.
– ÎœÎ¬ÃÂκο ΚαÃÂαμÎÂÃÂηÂ
Aug 26 at 19:53
1
If you rearrange the terms you may take any number you want.
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:53
3
See Riemman theorem
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:54
1
A sum $sum_n=1^infty a_n$ is supposed to be summed in a particular order: start with $a_1$ then add $a_2$ then add $a_3$ etc. This converges to $ln(2)$ here. If you change the order you can change the sum if the series if conditionally convergent.
– Winther
Aug 26 at 19:55
why can it be made to sum to any number? Btw the $ln2$ part comes from the Taylor expansion of the logarithm.
– ÎœÎ¬ÃÂκο ΚαÃÂαμÎÂÃÂηÂ
Aug 26 at 19:53
why can it be made to sum to any number? Btw the $ln2$ part comes from the Taylor expansion of the logarithm.
– ÎœÎ¬ÃÂκο ΚαÃÂαμÎÂÃÂηÂ
Aug 26 at 19:53
1
1
If you rearrange the terms you may take any number you want.
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:53
If you rearrange the terms you may take any number you want.
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:53
3
3
See Riemman theorem
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:54
See Riemman theorem
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:54
1
1
A sum $sum_n=1^infty a_n$ is supposed to be summed in a particular order: start with $a_1$ then add $a_2$ then add $a_3$ etc. This converges to $ln(2)$ here. If you change the order you can change the sum if the series if conditionally convergent.
– Winther
Aug 26 at 19:55
A sum $sum_n=1^infty a_n$ is supposed to be summed in a particular order: start with $a_1$ then add $a_2$ then add $a_3$ etc. This converges to $ln(2)$ here. If you change the order you can change the sum if the series if conditionally convergent.
– Winther
Aug 26 at 19:55
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
The result you are using is called the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem. It says that if a series is conditionally convergent, then for any real number there is a rearrangement of the series such that the new series converges to that number.
There are two points to note here:
- A series is not just a sequence of numbers that is summed up. It is a sequence of numbers that is summed up in a specific order. So, the rearrangements are all distinct series. They are not the same series, so it is incorrect to say that $sum (-1)^n / n$ can be summed up to any real value. Each rearrangement of this series is a different series that converges to a unique real number, if it converges at all.
- It is crucial that the series you consider be conditionally convergent. An absolutely convergent series is convergent; moreover, any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series is absolutely convergent, and it converges to the same value as the original series. This gives you the necessary and sufficient conditions you wanted.
You can find a proof of the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem in any standard textbook on real analysis, say Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
It is a straightforward exercise to show using an $epsilon$-$delta$ argument that an absolutely convergent series is convergent. It may be slightly more difficult to show that any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series converges to the same value, but this site has covered that scenario as well.
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
1
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
1
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
1
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
It can be made to sum to any number by a suitable rearrangement of terms. In the order $1-frac12+frac13-frac14+cdots$, it has the unique value $ln 2$; that is to say, by evaluating the sum of the first $n$ terms in this order, we can get as close to $ln 2$ as we like by making $n$ large enough.
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
The result you are using is called the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem. It says that if a series is conditionally convergent, then for any real number there is a rearrangement of the series such that the new series converges to that number.
There are two points to note here:
- A series is not just a sequence of numbers that is summed up. It is a sequence of numbers that is summed up in a specific order. So, the rearrangements are all distinct series. They are not the same series, so it is incorrect to say that $sum (-1)^n / n$ can be summed up to any real value. Each rearrangement of this series is a different series that converges to a unique real number, if it converges at all.
- It is crucial that the series you consider be conditionally convergent. An absolutely convergent series is convergent; moreover, any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series is absolutely convergent, and it converges to the same value as the original series. This gives you the necessary and sufficient conditions you wanted.
You can find a proof of the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem in any standard textbook on real analysis, say Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
It is a straightforward exercise to show using an $epsilon$-$delta$ argument that an absolutely convergent series is convergent. It may be slightly more difficult to show that any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series converges to the same value, but this site has covered that scenario as well.
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
1
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
1
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
1
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
The result you are using is called the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem. It says that if a series is conditionally convergent, then for any real number there is a rearrangement of the series such that the new series converges to that number.
There are two points to note here:
- A series is not just a sequence of numbers that is summed up. It is a sequence of numbers that is summed up in a specific order. So, the rearrangements are all distinct series. They are not the same series, so it is incorrect to say that $sum (-1)^n / n$ can be summed up to any real value. Each rearrangement of this series is a different series that converges to a unique real number, if it converges at all.
- It is crucial that the series you consider be conditionally convergent. An absolutely convergent series is convergent; moreover, any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series is absolutely convergent, and it converges to the same value as the original series. This gives you the necessary and sufficient conditions you wanted.
You can find a proof of the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem in any standard textbook on real analysis, say Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
It is a straightforward exercise to show using an $epsilon$-$delta$ argument that an absolutely convergent series is convergent. It may be slightly more difficult to show that any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series converges to the same value, but this site has covered that scenario as well.
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
1
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
1
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
1
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
The result you are using is called the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem. It says that if a series is conditionally convergent, then for any real number there is a rearrangement of the series such that the new series converges to that number.
There are two points to note here:
- A series is not just a sequence of numbers that is summed up. It is a sequence of numbers that is summed up in a specific order. So, the rearrangements are all distinct series. They are not the same series, so it is incorrect to say that $sum (-1)^n / n$ can be summed up to any real value. Each rearrangement of this series is a different series that converges to a unique real number, if it converges at all.
- It is crucial that the series you consider be conditionally convergent. An absolutely convergent series is convergent; moreover, any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series is absolutely convergent, and it converges to the same value as the original series. This gives you the necessary and sufficient conditions you wanted.
You can find a proof of the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem in any standard textbook on real analysis, say Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
It is a straightforward exercise to show using an $epsilon$-$delta$ argument that an absolutely convergent series is convergent. It may be slightly more difficult to show that any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series converges to the same value, but this site has covered that scenario as well.
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
The result you are using is called the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem. It says that if a series is conditionally convergent, then for any real number there is a rearrangement of the series such that the new series converges to that number.
There are two points to note here:
- A series is not just a sequence of numbers that is summed up. It is a sequence of numbers that is summed up in a specific order. So, the rearrangements are all distinct series. They are not the same series, so it is incorrect to say that $sum (-1)^n / n$ can be summed up to any real value. Each rearrangement of this series is a different series that converges to a unique real number, if it converges at all.
- It is crucial that the series you consider be conditionally convergent. An absolutely convergent series is convergent; moreover, any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series is absolutely convergent, and it converges to the same value as the original series. This gives you the necessary and sufficient conditions you wanted.
You can find a proof of the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem in any standard textbook on real analysis, say Walter Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
It is a straightforward exercise to show using an $epsilon$-$delta$ argument that an absolutely convergent series is convergent. It may be slightly more difficult to show that any rearrangement of an absolutely convergent series converges to the same value, but this site has covered that scenario as well.
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
edited Aug 27 at 18:11
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
answered Aug 26 at 19:58
Brahadeesh
4,11331550
4,11331550
1
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
1
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
1
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
add a comment |Â
1
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
1
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
1
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
1
1
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
This is a perfect answer (normally I don't get nice answers) however I need to learn the Riemann Rearrangement Theorem from the mentioned book soon.. Thanks a lot :)
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:07
1
1
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
@Edi No problem, glad to be of help. :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 26 at 20:09
1
1
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
The idea behind the proof is pretty simple. If you want to get your series to sum to a given $a$, take the sum of the positive terms in order until it is the sum is just above $a$; then add on the negative terms in order until the sum is just below $a$; and continue.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 27 at 1:41
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
+1 and this becomes a "nice answer" officially.
– Paramanand Singh
Aug 27 at 5:56
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
@ParamanandSingh high praise, thanks a lot! :)
– Brahadeesh
Aug 27 at 6:07
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
It can be made to sum to any number by a suitable rearrangement of terms. In the order $1-frac12+frac13-frac14+cdots$, it has the unique value $ln 2$; that is to say, by evaluating the sum of the first $n$ terms in this order, we can get as close to $ln 2$ as we like by making $n$ large enough.
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
It can be made to sum to any number by a suitable rearrangement of terms. In the order $1-frac12+frac13-frac14+cdots$, it has the unique value $ln 2$; that is to say, by evaluating the sum of the first $n$ terms in this order, we can get as close to $ln 2$ as we like by making $n$ large enough.
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It can be made to sum to any number by a suitable rearrangement of terms. In the order $1-frac12+frac13-frac14+cdots$, it has the unique value $ln 2$; that is to say, by evaluating the sum of the first $n$ terms in this order, we can get as close to $ln 2$ as we like by making $n$ large enough.
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
It can be made to sum to any number by a suitable rearrangement of terms. In the order $1-frac12+frac13-frac14+cdots$, it has the unique value $ln 2$; that is to say, by evaluating the sum of the first $n$ terms in this order, we can get as close to $ln 2$ as we like by making $n$ large enough.
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
answered Aug 26 at 19:57
TonyK
38.7k348127
38.7k348127
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
add a comment |Â
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
Yes I know from where ln(2) comes but I asked why if there are any number so why ln(2)? .. which @ Winther 's comment answers that partially.
– Edi
Aug 26 at 20:00
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2895449%2fif-sum-1n1-frac1n-can-be-made-to-sum-to-any-number-then-why-is-it-equa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
why can it be made to sum to any number? Btw the $ln2$ part comes from the Taylor expansion of the logarithm.
– ÎœÎ¬ÃÂκο ΚαÃÂαμÎÂÃÂηÂ
Aug 26 at 19:53
1
If you rearrange the terms you may take any number you want.
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:53
3
See Riemman theorem
– dmtri
Aug 26 at 19:54
1
A sum $sum_n=1^infty a_n$ is supposed to be summed in a particular order: start with $a_1$ then add $a_2$ then add $a_3$ etc. This converges to $ln(2)$ here. If you change the order you can change the sum if the series if conditionally convergent.
– Winther
Aug 26 at 19:55