Power series summation equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the convergence of power series, particularly the series 1 + x^2 + x^4 + ... = 1/(1-x^2) for |x| < 1, and its implications when evaluated outside this range. Roger Penrose's work highlights the concept of analytic continuation, where a function can be extended beyond its radius of convergence, allowing for interpretations of divergent series. The equation 1 + 2^2 + 2^4 + ... = -1/3 is presented as an example of a mathematically intriguing but nonsensical result outside the convergence domain. The conversation emphasizes that while the series diverges, the function f(x) = 1/(1-x^2) remains valid and useful in broader contexts, especially in modern physics. Understanding these nuances is crucial for grasping the mathematical correctness of seemingly absurd results in series summation.
vibhuav
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
(Was posted in general physics forum also)

I am currently reading Roger Penrose’s “Road to Reality”. In section 4.3, Convergence of power series, he refers to the sum of the series:
1 + x2 + x4 + x6 + x8 + ... = 1/(1-x2)

Of course, this is true for |x| < 1, beyond which the series diverges and the equation for the summation does not apply. Penrose uses this equation and the similar one, namely 1 - x2 + x4 - x6 + x8 - ... = 1/(1+x2), to demonstrate the “reality” of imaginary numbers. I understood that and the argument is very impressive.

As a digression, he uses the first equation for x=2:
1 + 22 + 24 + 26 + 28 + ... = 1/(1-22) = -1/3

which is obviously nonsensical. But then, he goes on to say “Yet, I think that it is important to appreciate that, in the appropriate sense, Euler really know what he was doing when he wrote down apparent absurdities of this nature, and that there are senses according to which the above equation must be regarded as ‘correct’...”. Further on, he says “...In fact, it is perfectly possible to give a mathematical sense to the answer ‘-1/3’ to the above infinite series, but one must be careful about the rules telling us what is allowed and what is not allowed. [refers the reader to GH Hardy’s book, Divergent Series]” and then he says “in modern physics, particularly in the areas of QFT, divergent series of this nature are frequently encountered...”

In what sense is the above absurdity ‘correct’? Can someone elaborate for me? I understand the part that outside the circle of convergence, one cannot reach the answer (infinity) by attempting to sum the series directly; such an attempt keeps diverging from the answer provided by 1/(1-x2). But it the ‘correctness of -1/3’ that I am not able to understand.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
A key idea here is known as analytic continuation. There is a region of values for x in which the series S(x) = 1 + x^2 + x^4 + ... can be summed straightforwardly to get a finite answer. In this region S(x) defines a perfectly well behaved function of x. There is a nice result in complex analysis that any sufficiently nice function defined on some region of the complex plane can be extended ("continued") to a function defined on the entire complex plane, and this extended function is essentially unique. 1/(1 - x^2) is the extended version of the function S(x): it agrees with S(x) for |x| < 1, and it is defined on the entire complex plane (excluding 1 and -1, where it blows up).

Maybe a better way to think of it is that, if we find ourselves using the equation "1 + 2^2 + 2^4 + ... = -1/3," we were never really interested in literally summing the series 1 + 2^2 + 2^4 + ... . Rather, we were interested a function f(x) which happens to agree with the series S(x) = 1 + x^2 + x^4 + ... when that series converges, but which is also defined outside that region of convergence. That function, f(x) = 1/(1 - x^2), is the true object of our study. From this perspective, the equation 1 + 2^2 + 2^4 + ... = -1/3 is rather silly. Yes, for |x| < 1 we can represent f(x) by the power series 1 + x^2 + x^4 + ..., but for |x| > 1 we can't really, and it's perverse to write an equation suggesting that you can.
 
Hi vibhuav !

one must not forget a term in the closed form.
If the forgotten term tends to 0, then OK, the closed form is correct.
If the forgotten term tends to infinity, then obviously the closed form is unsuitable.
 

Attachments

  • infinite series.JPG
    infinite series.JPG
    20 KB · Views: 492
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
277
Replies
2
Views
276
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top