Author |
Topic: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ... (Read 1300 times) |
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
 |
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #1 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 1:41am » |
|
::undefined::
|
|
 IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #2 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 2:50am » |
|
I know that's the 'answer', but why isn't it 0 or 1? For example, the answer to, |x–0.5|=0.5, is x=0,1, but we wouldn't say it is undefined.
In fact, could we reason as follows...
::
Let S=1–1+1–1+...
-S=–1+1–1+1–...
Adding both sides, 0=?, and the only way for this to remain consistent is if the RHS is also zero. Hence there are as many +1's as -1's; so the sum, S=0.
::
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #3 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 3:20am » |
|
on Oct 29th, 2003, 2:50am, Sir Col wrote:| but why isn't it <hidden> |
|
::infinity is neither odd, nor even, nor both.. so while for any finite n number of terms it is 1 when n is odd, and 0 when n is even, you can't say what it is 'at infinity'. Taking 0 or 1 or the average, 0.5 is just as (un)reasonable as taking 0.1, or 0.7 or sqrt(1/2).::
Quote:| In fact, could we reason as follows... |
|
we could, but ::
If S-S =0, that doesn't mean S=0
besides S is also 1 + (-S), so 2S = 1 which means S = 0.5.
But we also have S = 2S, since S = 1 -1 + 1 - 1 + 1 -1 + 1 - 1 + ... = 1 + 1 - 1 - 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 - 1 + ... = 2*1 +2*-1 + 2*1 + 2*-1 ... = 2S
So S = 0
And let's not forget S = 1 + S, since 1 -1 +1 - 1 +1 = 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
You can push any number of +1's, or -1's to the front if you want, as long as it's a finite number.. The only problem is that with an infinite sum, the same number of -1's or 1's respectively 'drop off at the other end' (you'll never get to add them back to the sum)::
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2003, 3:26am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Dudidu
Full Member
Posts: 227
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #4 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 3:36am » |
|
on Oct 29th, 2003, 2:50am, Sir Col wrote:| I know that's the 'answer', but why isn't it ... |
|
The problem for my opinion is that
the [sum]i=0[smiley=supinfty.gif] (-1)i does not converges  , thus the result is undefined !
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
william wu
wu::riddles Administrator
Gender:
Posts: 1291
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #5 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 9:25am » |
|
Some mathematicians would argue that "in some sense", the sum converges to 0.5 
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2003, 9:26am by william wu » |
IP Logged |
[ wu ] : http://wuriddles.com / http://forums.wuriddles.com
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #6 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 10:03am » |
|
Actually, I've just found a flaw in my reasoning (now there's a surprise):
Consider S=1–1+1=1, -S=–1+1–1. Obviously S+-S=0, but that tells us nothing about S.
[e]Edited to apologise to towr: Yep, you caught my nonesene post before I realised what a load of rubbish I was talking and 'corrected' it.[/e]
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2003, 3:20pm by Sir Col » |
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #7 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 10:11am » |
|
[e]meh, you allready changed your post..
anyway, this is still a valid point I think..[/e]
It doesn't matter that there's a one to one mapping.
if you take s = 1 +1 -1 +1 +1 -1... there is also a one-to-one mapping here,
every 1 at position 3n+1 can be paired with a -1 at 6n,
and each 1 at 3n+2 has his companian -1 at 6n+3..
So there's equally many 1's and -1's , infinitely many.. Yet the sum clearly goes to infinity regardless..
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 29th, 2003, 10:13am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #8 on: Oct 29th, 2003, 7:00pm » |
|
on Oct 29th, 2003, 9:25am, william wu wrote:| Some mathematicians would argue that "in some sense", the sum converges to 0.5 |
|
Not just "in some sense", but rather "in the sense of Cesaro".
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Dudidu
Full Member
Posts: 227
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #9 on: Oct 30th, 2003, 12:26am » |
|
on Oct 29th, 2003, 7:00pm, Icarus wrote:| Not just "in some sense", but rather "in the sense of Cesaro". |
|
Icarus, just for general knowledge what is "the sense of Cesaro" ?
(A reference might be also helpful  )
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #10 on: Oct 30th, 2003, 1:21am » |
|
I can't find anything on it at either mathworld, nor wikipedia. But it is caually mentioned at a few pages on the web
Basicly the Cesaro limit seem to be the limit of the average of the partial sums..
lim [ a1 + a2 + ... + an ]/n
Which is the same as the lim an, if the sequence an converges..
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 30th, 2003, 1:22am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #11 on: Oct 30th, 2003, 3:34pm » |
|
A sequence {an} is called "Cesaro summable" if the sequence of averages {1/n [sum]k=1n ak} converges.
As towr as said, if {an} converges, then it is Cesaro summable, and the Cesaro limit is the same as the ordinary limit. But some sequences (such as the sequence of partial sums of 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...) are Cesaro summable even though they do not converge.
The Cesaro limit is the most common of many possible extensions of the concept of limit to non-convergent sequences.
These extensions are not really all that useful. Generally, if a sequence fails to converge in the normal sense, that is exactly the information you need from it. But occasionally the application requires a value to put out even though it does not require convergence. In this case, some extension is needed (which one depends on the application), and Cesaro's is the most likely to work (as might be expected).
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
Dudidu
Full Member
Posts: 227
|
|
Re: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...
« Reply #12 on: Oct 31st, 2003, 11:23am » |
|
Icarus and towr,
Thank you... every day you learn something new  .
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print