Converging Uncountable Sum of Positive Reals

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of a converging uncountable sum of strictly positive real numbers. Participants explore definitions and implications of uncountable sums, questioning whether such sums can converge and how they might be defined in contrast to countable sums and integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether an uncountable sum of strictly positive reals can converge, suggesting that if it does, all but countably many terms must be zero.
  • Others propose that the concept of an uncountable sum needs a clear definition, with some suggesting that it might relate to integrals.
  • A definition of an uncountable sum is provided, which involves the convergence of finite sums to a real number within a specified epsilon margin.
  • One participant introduces a method for summing a possibly uncountable sequence indexed by ordinals, suggesting that the supremum of finite sums could be used.
  • There is a discussion about the indexing of sequences by ordinals, particularly regarding the ordinal epsilon_0 and its relationship to countability.
  • Some participants express confusion over the notation and definitions used, with one asserting that if a sum of positive reals converges, the index set must be countable.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that the index set must be countable, indicating that mere assertion does not constitute proof and hints at a potential proof involving the properties of the real line.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of converging uncountable sums of positive reals. Multiple competing views remain regarding definitions and implications of such sums.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the definitions provided, particularly regarding the assumptions underlying uncountable sums and the conditions for convergence. The discussion also highlights the potential confusion surrounding ordinal notation and its implications for countability.

Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5
Does there exist a converging uncountable sum of strictly positive reals?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would that be an integral?
 
No. I mean an actual uncountable sum. An (Riemann) integral is the limit of a sequence of countable sums.
 
In the sensible way to define uncountable sums, you prove that for a sum of real terms, if it converges (to a real number) then all but countably many terms must be zero.
 
Dragonfall said:
Does there exist a converging uncountable sum of strictly positive reals?
First you will have to define what you mean by "uncountable sum"! I know a definition for finite sums and I know a definition for countable sums (the limit of the partial, finite, sums), but I do not know any definition for an uncountable sum except, possibly the integral that bpet suggested.
 
Definition Let [itex]S[/itex] be an index set. Let [itex]a \colon S \to \mathbb{R}[/itex] be a real function on [itex]S[/itex]. Let [itex]V[/itex] be a real number. Then we say [itex]V = \sum_{s\in S} a(s)[/itex] iff for every [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there is a finite set [itex]A_\epsilon \subseteq S[/itex] such that for all finite sets [itex]A[/itex] , if [itex]A_\epsilon \subseteq A \subseteq S[/itex] we have [itex]\left|V - \sum_{s \in A} a(s)\right| < \epsilon[/itex] .
 
I'm surprised. I thought this would have been defined at some point.

Suppose [tex]x_i[/tex] is a (possibly uncountable) sequence of positive reals indexed by some ordinal L. Then their sum is [tex]\sum_{i\in L}x_i=\sup\{\sum_{i\in k}x_i:k<L\}[/tex]. This takes care of limit ordinals.

So does there exist sequences [tex]x_i[/tex] indexed by ordinals [tex]D\geq\epsilon_0[/tex] such that [tex]\sum_{i\in D}x_i[/tex] is finite, and that each x_i is positive?
 
g_edgar said:
Definition Let [itex]S[/itex] be an index set. Let [itex]a \colon S \to \mathbb{R}[/itex] be a real function on [itex]S[/itex]. Let [itex]V[/itex] be a real number. Then we say [itex]V = \sum_{s\in S} a(s)[/itex] iff for every [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] there is a finite set [itex]A_\epsilon \subseteq S[/itex] such that for all finite sets [itex]A[/itex] , if [itex]A_\epsilon \subseteq A \subseteq S[/itex] we have [itex]\left|V - \sum_{s \in A} a(s)\right| < \epsilon[/itex] .

I don't know what this definition is trying to achieve. I prefer mine.
 
Dragonfall said:
So does there exist sequences [tex]x_i[/tex] indexed by ordinals [tex]D\geq\epsilon_0[/tex] such that [tex]\sum_{i\in D}x_i[/tex] is finite, and that each x_i is positive?

If and only if [itex]D[/itex] is countable.
 
  • #10
Well [tex]\epsilon_0[/tex] is the first uncountable ordinal, so why not?
 
  • #11
Strange ... [itex]\epsilon_0[/itex] is commonly used to represent a certain countable ordinal, while [itex]\omega_1[/itex] denotes the least uncountable ordinal. In any case, that notation doesn't matter. Here is a repeat of the same answer as before: If a sum of positive real terms converges to a finite value, then the index set is countable.
 
  • #12
Yes I was mistaken on the notation, it should be [tex]\omega_1[/tex].

You have yet to say why. You asserting it true doesn't constitute a proof.
 
  • #13
Dragonfall said:
Yes I was mistaken on the notation, it should be [tex]\omega_1[/tex].

You have yet to say why. You asserting it true doesn't constitute a proof.

Hint for the proof: the real line has a countable dense set, and every term of the convergent series corresponds to an interval.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K