Non-commutativity of a limiting sum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the non-commutativity of limits and infinite sums, specifically analyzing the expressions involving the limit as x approaches 1. It highlights that the limit of the sum can yield a different result than the sum of the limits, emphasizing that these two operations are not interchangeable without specific conditions. The participants clarify that the series converges differently based on how the terms are arranged and that associativity does not apply to infinite series in the same way it does for finite sums. They also stress the importance of understanding the formal definition of infinite series and the behavior of divergent series. Overall, the conversation underscores the complexities of handling limits and infinite sums in mathematical analysis.
Unit
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
I read this in the appendix of Hardy's pure mathematics textbook and an explanation was not given:

\lim_{x \to 1} \sum_1^\infty \left( x^{n-1}-x^n \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} 1 = 1

\sum_1^\infty \lim_{x \to 1} \left( x^{n-1}-x^n \right) = \sum_1^\infty \left( 1 - 1 \right) = 0 + 0 + 0 + \ldots = 0

Are both answers correct? I thought that associativity only applied to a finite series of operations, which is why I think the first equation is wrong.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What's going on when you are taking the limit in the first equation? It seems to me that it also should be 0.

Note however that the infinite sums only make sense when |x| <= 1.

Remember that \lim_{x \to a } \sum^\infty_{n=1} f_n(x) and \sum^\infty_{n=1} \lim_{x \to a } f_n(x) are essentially two different things, and are only equal under certain conditions.
 
Last edited:
Jarle said:
What's going on when you are taking the limit in the first equation? It seems to me that it also should be 0.
\lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + 0 + 0 + \ldots \right) = 1

This is what I meant by my associativity remark.
Jarle said:
Note however that the infinite sums only make sense when |x| <= 1.
In the limits, x approaches 1, meaning both \lim_{x \to 1^+} and \lim_{x \to 1^-}. Surely at least the "from below" limit is meets the |x| <= 1 condition?
 
Unit said:
\lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + 0 + 0 + \ldots \right) = 1

Note that \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) and \left( 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots \right) are very different sums! They just happen to converge to the same value under certain conditions. That does not mean they necessarily behave equally. It must be clear what the consecutive terms are in the sum for it to make sense.


Unit said:
In the limits, x approaches 1, meaning both \lim_{x \to 1^+} and \lim_{x \to 1^-}. Surely at least the "from below" limit is meets the |x| <= 1 condition?

Yes, but my point was that in the first case you are taking the limit of a sum which requires that |x| <= 1 in the first place.
 
Last edited:
To avoid confusion: assume the limit has been removed (it doesn't exist) and instead we are just evaluating the series at x=1 (which does exist)

For infinite sums, associativity is sketchy. In particular, you can only do infinitely many re-arrangements if your sum converges absolutely, otherwise you might be changing the value.

For this particular example, the formal definition of an infinite series is being obscured to confuse you. Formally, an infinite series is a sequence of partial sums

S_1,S_2,S_3,... where S_i is the sum of the first i terms. The series converges to whatever number the partial sums converge to

Writing \sum_1^\infty \left( x^{n-1}-x^n \right means that S_1=1-x and S_2=(1-x)+(x-x^2) and S_3=(1-x)+(x-x^2)+(x^2-x^3). In general, S_n=1-x^n and this converges to 0 as x goes to 1

The series being used to get a value of 1 (which is not properly written out) is
S_1=1 and S_2=1 + (-x + x) and S_3= 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2+x^2) which of course has S_k=1 for all values of k.

To summarize, these are two entirely different infinite series. What makes them look similar is the fact that they can be disguised as being the same by looking at a third divergent series
S_1=1 and S_2=1-x and S_3=1-x+x and S_4=1-x+x-x^2 etc. Basically what has happened here is that there is a natural divergent series, and two different subsequences converging to different values were picked out of it. Because we're not very good intuitively at noticing this slight of hand, we assume that the two subsequences should converge to the same value, and are surprised when it doesn'tAs a final aside, you should always be careful about whether you can really move a limit from outside of an infinite series to inside of it.
 
Wow, Office_Shredder -- that was exceptionally well put. I understand completely! Thanks a lot!
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top