1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Interesting problem

  1. Mar 27, 2007 #1
    we have to prove that


    any ideas?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2007 #2
    maybe you are trying to "prove" that

    here is a "proof" :)

    S = 10 + 100 + 1000 + 10000 + ...

    10S = 100 + 1000 + 10000 + ...

    S - 10S = 10
    => -9S = 10
    => S = -(10/9)
    => 10 + 100 + 1000 + 10000 + ... = -(10/9)
  4. Mar 27, 2007 #3
    i dunno maybe this is what i actually was looking for.
  5. Mar 27, 2007 #4
    but note that what i have given as a "proof" is not really a proof at all. the series 10 + 100 + 1000 + ... doesn't converge. so my "proof" doesn't actually work.
  6. Mar 27, 2007 #5
    so Murshid_islam what is the deal here? I can see that the series does not converge, however where is the problem on your proof? Is there a mathematical error, cause i could not see it, or what can we say about this?
  7. Mar 27, 2007 #6
    The error was when he subtracted the two and got a fixed real number. Subtracting infinity from infinity is not a well-defined operation.
  8. Mar 27, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Because, in his expression for 10S, he ignored the largest term present there.
  9. Mar 27, 2007 #8
    as long as we are talking for infinit large numbers i cannot grasp how could there be a larger number on 10S than on S.I think it is absurd to talk about a "largest"term here, as long as we deal with infinit large terms! however i do understand the error now. SO defenitely we can say that

    is not mathematically true, and i cannot count on it, right?
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2007
  10. Mar 27, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would have thought it obvious from the start that a sum of positive numbers cannot be negative!

    Yes, I recommend that you not count on it!
  11. Mar 27, 2007 #10
    why don't you use sum of infinite G.P?
  12. Mar 27, 2007 #11
    What does G.P mean at first place? I am sorry i am not used to these, so i really don't know what they stand for?
    can you tell me?
  13. Mar 27, 2007 #12
    Yeah, i also thought it could not be negative. However i saw this on a tv scientific show, and a proffesor demonstrated this, so i just wondered how that would be possible. That proffesor, whose name i cannot remember, said that he had turned this for a mathematical test to prove that this is right. If ,at first place, this is exactly what i saw, couse i am not 100% posotive.
  14. Mar 27, 2007 #13
    G.P - Geometric Progression

    It is a series in which each term, apart from the first, is a fixed multiple of the previous term.

    a + ar + ar^2 + ar^3 + ...+ar^n+...

    The sum of the first n terms of such a series is a(1-rn)/(1-r). Check what happens for your series, when n tends to infinity.
  15. Mar 27, 2007 #14
    thnx, i do know what a geometric progression is, but just did not know that g.p stands for that.
    thnx indeed.
  16. Mar 27, 2007 #15
    i think after we find the sum of that geometric progression using a(1-rn)/(1-r), and if we evaluate the limit of the result, it turns out that the sum must be infinity. Is that right?
  17. Mar 27, 2007 #16
    Yes, it diverges.

    But, as mentioned earlier, the thing that should first convince you that the statement is not true is that the a sum of positive numbers cannot give you a negative number.
  18. Mar 27, 2007 #17
    yeah, thank you guys for your help.
  19. Mar 27, 2007 #18
    the error was when i let S = 10 + 100 + 1000 + .....
    As the series doesn't converge i cannot let it equal to a number S.
  20. Mar 27, 2007 #19
    Funny coincidence, but this Friday a prof at m university is giving a talk on why 1+2+4+6+...=-1 in the 2-adic numbers.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook