Evaluation of this infinite series
$begingroup$
Given the following infinite series:
$sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{1}{(n)^{p}}-frac{1}{(n+1)^{p}}$
Find the summation of this series?
My approach:
The above series expands to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p}-frac{1}{2^p}) +(frac{1}{2^p}-frac{1}{3^p}) + (frac{1}{3^p}-frac{1}{4^p})+ (frac{1}{4^p}-frac{1}{5^p}).... (frac{1}{(infty)^p}-frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
Since, from second term onward, all neighboring terms cancel each other out all the 'middle' terms will cancel each other out. Thus it will evaluate to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
As, for any finite real/complex value of: $p$ $(infty+2)^p = infty$. Thus,
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{infty})$.
As, $frac{1}{infty} = 0$. Thus:
Sum = $frac{1}{1^p}$. (for any finite value of $p$).
Query: Is the above argument correct and can we can replace the series with $frac{1}{1^p}$ in any equation or not?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given the following infinite series:
$sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{1}{(n)^{p}}-frac{1}{(n+1)^{p}}$
Find the summation of this series?
My approach:
The above series expands to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p}-frac{1}{2^p}) +(frac{1}{2^p}-frac{1}{3^p}) + (frac{1}{3^p}-frac{1}{4^p})+ (frac{1}{4^p}-frac{1}{5^p}).... (frac{1}{(infty)^p}-frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
Since, from second term onward, all neighboring terms cancel each other out all the 'middle' terms will cancel each other out. Thus it will evaluate to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
As, for any finite real/complex value of: $p$ $(infty+2)^p = infty$. Thus,
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{infty})$.
As, $frac{1}{infty} = 0$. Thus:
Sum = $frac{1}{1^p}$. (for any finite value of $p$).
Query: Is the above argument correct and can we can replace the series with $frac{1}{1^p}$ in any equation or not?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
You're throwing around $infty$ like it's an actual number...
$endgroup$
– Andrew Li
Dec 19 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
No it is not sound. Fortunately there is a very simple way to make it rigorous.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
$begingroup$
@Did I was wondering if the method below (in the answer) is what you had in mind when you said that there is a simple way to make it rigorous?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:59
2
$begingroup$
It is. $ $ $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 13:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given the following infinite series:
$sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{1}{(n)^{p}}-frac{1}{(n+1)^{p}}$
Find the summation of this series?
My approach:
The above series expands to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p}-frac{1}{2^p}) +(frac{1}{2^p}-frac{1}{3^p}) + (frac{1}{3^p}-frac{1}{4^p})+ (frac{1}{4^p}-frac{1}{5^p}).... (frac{1}{(infty)^p}-frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
Since, from second term onward, all neighboring terms cancel each other out all the 'middle' terms will cancel each other out. Thus it will evaluate to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
As, for any finite real/complex value of: $p$ $(infty+2)^p = infty$. Thus,
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{infty})$.
As, $frac{1}{infty} = 0$. Thus:
Sum = $frac{1}{1^p}$. (for any finite value of $p$).
Query: Is the above argument correct and can we can replace the series with $frac{1}{1^p}$ in any equation or not?
real-analysis
$endgroup$
Given the following infinite series:
$sum_{n=1}^{infty}frac{1}{(n)^{p}}-frac{1}{(n+1)^{p}}$
Find the summation of this series?
My approach:
The above series expands to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p}-frac{1}{2^p}) +(frac{1}{2^p}-frac{1}{3^p}) + (frac{1}{3^p}-frac{1}{4^p})+ (frac{1}{4^p}-frac{1}{5^p}).... (frac{1}{(infty)^p}-frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
Since, from second term onward, all neighboring terms cancel each other out all the 'middle' terms will cancel each other out. Thus it will evaluate to:
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{(infty+2)^p})$
As, for any finite real/complex value of: $p$ $(infty+2)^p = infty$. Thus,
Sum = $(frac{1}{1^p} - frac{1}{infty})$.
As, $frac{1}{infty} = 0$. Thus:
Sum = $frac{1}{1^p}$. (for any finite value of $p$).
Query: Is the above argument correct and can we can replace the series with $frac{1}{1^p}$ in any equation or not?
real-analysis
real-analysis
asked Dec 19 '18 at 12:33
TheoryQuest1TheoryQuest1
1498
1498
2
$begingroup$
You're throwing around $infty$ like it's an actual number...
$endgroup$
– Andrew Li
Dec 19 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
No it is not sound. Fortunately there is a very simple way to make it rigorous.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
$begingroup$
@Did I was wondering if the method below (in the answer) is what you had in mind when you said that there is a simple way to make it rigorous?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:59
2
$begingroup$
It is. $ $ $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 13:04
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
You're throwing around $infty$ like it's an actual number...
$endgroup$
– Andrew Li
Dec 19 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
No it is not sound. Fortunately there is a very simple way to make it rigorous.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
$begingroup$
@Did I was wondering if the method below (in the answer) is what you had in mind when you said that there is a simple way to make it rigorous?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:59
2
$begingroup$
It is. $ $ $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 13:04
2
2
$begingroup$
You're throwing around $infty$ like it's an actual number...
$endgroup$
– Andrew Li
Dec 19 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
You're throwing around $infty$ like it's an actual number...
$endgroup$
– Andrew Li
Dec 19 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
No it is not sound. Fortunately there is a very simple way to make it rigorous.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
$begingroup$
No it is not sound. Fortunately there is a very simple way to make it rigorous.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
$begingroup$
@Did I was wondering if the method below (in the answer) is what you had in mind when you said that there is a simple way to make it rigorous?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:59
$begingroup$
@Did I was wondering if the method below (in the answer) is what you had in mind when you said that there is a simple way to make it rigorous?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:59
2
2
$begingroup$
It is. $ $ $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 13:04
$begingroup$
It is. $ $ $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 13:04
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes you can, although the symbol $infty$ can be handled in a different way. For example, call
$$
S_N = sum_{n=1}^Nfrac{1}{n^p} - frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}
$$
You showed that
$$
S_N = 1 - frac{1}{(N + 1)^p}
$$
The sum you are interested in is
$$
S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
1
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
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%2f3046334%2fevaluation-of-this-infinite-series%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes you can, although the symbol $infty$ can be handled in a different way. For example, call
$$
S_N = sum_{n=1}^Nfrac{1}{n^p} - frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}
$$
You showed that
$$
S_N = 1 - frac{1}{(N + 1)^p}
$$
The sum you are interested in is
$$
S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
1
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes you can, although the symbol $infty$ can be handled in a different way. For example, call
$$
S_N = sum_{n=1}^Nfrac{1}{n^p} - frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}
$$
You showed that
$$
S_N = 1 - frac{1}{(N + 1)^p}
$$
The sum you are interested in is
$$
S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1
$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
1
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes you can, although the symbol $infty$ can be handled in a different way. For example, call
$$
S_N = sum_{n=1}^Nfrac{1}{n^p} - frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}
$$
You showed that
$$
S_N = 1 - frac{1}{(N + 1)^p}
$$
The sum you are interested in is
$$
S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1
$$
$endgroup$
Yes you can, although the symbol $infty$ can be handled in a different way. For example, call
$$
S_N = sum_{n=1}^Nfrac{1}{n^p} - frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}
$$
You showed that
$$
S_N = 1 - frac{1}{(N + 1)^p}
$$
The sum you are interested in is
$$
S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1
$$
answered Dec 19 '18 at 12:37
caveraccaverac
14.8k31130
14.8k31130
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
1
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
1
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
Thank you. As I understand, when we say $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ instead of $frac{1}{1^p}$ we essentially imply that as $lim_{N to infty} then frac{1}{(N + 1)^p} to 0$. Thus, it is never exactly 0 but goes asymptotically to 0. Now, here is what I am struggling with. (1) If I remember correctly, $.99999...$ with infinite digits is considered equal to 1. Why can't we have the same argument for this case?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:52
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
$begingroup$
(2) In any equation, do we replace the series, with $S = lim_{N to infty} S_N = 1$ as the sum instead of 1 (as I thought) ?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:53
1
1
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
$begingroup$
@TheoryQuest1 You can replace the series as 1, as it converges to 1. You can see this other post, maybe it will help you
$endgroup$
– caverac
Dec 19 '18 at 12:56
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.
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%2f3046334%2fevaluation-of-this-infinite-series%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
2
$begingroup$
You're throwing around $infty$ like it's an actual number...
$endgroup$
– Andrew Li
Dec 19 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
No it is not sound. Fortunately there is a very simple way to make it rigorous.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 12:38
$begingroup$
@Did I was wondering if the method below (in the answer) is what you had in mind when you said that there is a simple way to make it rigorous?
$endgroup$
– TheoryQuest1
Dec 19 '18 at 12:59
2
$begingroup$
It is. $ $ $ $ $ $
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 19 '18 at 13:04