Is it possible to transform infinite sums into infinite products?

  • Thread starter japplepie
  • Start date
  • #1
japplepie
93
0
is it also possible to transform any these kinds summation to any product notation:

1. infinite - convergent
2. infinite - divergent
3. finite (but preserves the "description" of the sequence)
For example, I could describe the number 6, from the summation of i from i=0 until 3.
Could I transform that description to something similar in product notation?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Mentallic
Homework Helper
3,802
94
For example, I could describe the number 6, from the summation of i from i=0 until 3.
Could I transform that description to something similar in product notation?

Sure,

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^3i = 6[/tex]

[tex]\prod_{i=1}^3i = 6[/tex]

:wink:
 
  • #3
pwsnafu
Science Advisor
1,082
85
If ##a_n## are positive then ##\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\log a_n## converges iff ##\prod_{n=1}^\infty a_n## converges.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
[tex]\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n= ln\left(\Pi_{n=1}^\infty e^{a_n}\right)[/tex]
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #5
japplepie
93
0
[tex]\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n= ln\left(\Pi_{n=1}^\infty e^{a_n}\right)[/tex]

guessing on the kind of variable your using, this works on every summations known to man

but I don't know how it works (I'm not studying math as high as this yet.)

what's with the ln and e^x?
 
  • #6
lurflurf
Homework Helper
2,452
148
So sums and products (including infinite) are the same thing and e^x or exp(x) and ln(x) or log(x) are used to switch between the two.

That is (for suitable x)

log(x)+log(y)=log(xy)
exp(x)exp(y)=exp(x+y)

6=1+2+3=log((e^1)(e^2)(e^3))

is the product form of the sum you asked about
 
  • #7
eddybob123
178
0
If the product is one between binomials of any form, than it can be turned into a sum:
$$\prod_{k=1}^n (a_k+b_k) = \sum_{k=0}^n c_k a_k b_{n-k}$$
where ##c_k## is the coefficient.
 
  • #8
japplepie
93
0
ok I understand now, but is there a way without having the values enclosed in a function restriction.

just the capital pi notation without a function outside of it.
 
  • #9
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
43,021
970
I don't know what you mean by "without having the values enclosed in a function restriction."

You asked for a "transform" and a transform is a function.
 
  • #10
lurflurf
Homework Helper
2,452
148
^He/she means that we have

f(a+b)=f(a)f(b)
for f(x)=exp(x)

f(ab)=f(a)+f(b)
for f(x)=log(x)

do there exist functions such that

a+b=f(a)f(b)

or

ab=f(a)+f(b)

I think not
 
  • #12
eusoueuetuestu
2
0
We also have

[tex]a_1+a_2+a_3\ldots+a_n=a_1.\frac{a_1+a_2}{a_1}.\frac{a_1+a_2+a_3}{a_1+a_2}\ldots\frac{a_1+a_2+a_3+\ldots+a_n}{a_1+a_2+a_3+\ldots+a_{n-1}}=\\

=a_1\left(1+\frac{a_2}{a_1}\right)\left(1+\frac{a_3}{a_1+a_2}\right)...\left(1+\frac{a_n}{a_1+a_2+a_3+\ldots+a_{n-1}}\right)[/tex]

For example, if [tex]a_1=1,a_2=2,a_3=3[/tex] then [tex]a_1+a_2+a_3=a_1\left(1+\frac{a_2}{a_1}\right)\left(1+\frac{a_3}{a_1+a_2}\right)=1\left(1+\frac{2}{1}\right)\left(1+\frac{3}{1+2}\right)=1.(1+2).(1+1)=1.3.2[/tex]

For infinite sums, we have

[tex]\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n=a_1\prod_{n=2}^\infty \left(1+\frac{a_n}{\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}a_k}\right)[/tex]
 
  • #13
japplepie
93
0
isn't there any thing that could just turn a sigma x to pi x'

without using one in the other or making either one a parameter of a function
 
  • #14
Mute
Homework Helper
1,388
12
isn't there any thing that could just turn a sigma x to pi x'

without using one in the other or making either one a parameter of a function

If you want a general rule like

$$\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_n = \prod_{k=0}^\infty f(a_n),$$
then I think you're out of luck.

The closest thing I can think of is that functions ##f(z)## that are entire in the complex plane can be represented as infinite products. Since entire functions have a convergent Taylor series, you can equate the Taylor series to the product. However, even then, there's no simple relation between the sum coefficients (related to derivatives of f(z)) and the product coefficients (related to the zeros of f(z)).
 
  • #15
japplepie
93
0
If you want a general rule like

$$\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_n = \prod_{k=0}^\infty f(a_n),$$
then I think you're out of luck.

The closest thing I can think of is that functions ##f(z)## that are entire in the complex plane can be represented as infinite products. Since entire functions have a convergent Taylor series, you can equate the Taylor series to the product. However, even then, there's no simple relation between the sum coefficients (related to derivatives of f(z)) and the product coefficients (related to the zeros of f(z)).

but, it's NOT impossible to have one right?
 
  • #16
Mute
Homework Helper
1,388
12
but, it's NOT impossible to have one right?

It depends on what exactly you want. eusoueuetuestu gave you an example of a general expression that converts a sum into a product, but the product representation involved a sum over some set of the a's, which sort of defeats the purpose.

If you want a relation

$$\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k = \prod_{k=1}^\infty f_k(a_k),$$
then while I can't say for sure it's impossible, it very well could be. The fact that no one here knows such a relation suggests that if one exists, no one has derived it yet (or at least not such a relation that's practical). Converting sums to products would be useful in many situations, so one would think such a relation would be well known if it existed. I don't think I've ever seen any conversions other than

$$\ln\left(\prod_{k=1}^\infty a_n\right) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \ln(a_k)$$
or
$$\exp\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k \right)= \prod_{k=1}^\infty \exp(a_k),$$
as have already been mentioned.
 
  • #17
eusoueuetuestu
2
0
It is impossible to have a+b=f(a)f(b).
Indeed, it is even impossible to have a+b=f(a)g(b) for some functions f and g and for all a and b.

Suppose that was not the case. Then,

[itex]4=f(2)g(2) \wedge 6=f(4)g(2) \Rightarrow f(4)/f(2)=6/4=3/2[/itex]
(just divide the second equation by the first, you can do that since all members are different from 0)

[itex]6=f(2)g(4) \wedge 8=f(4)g(4) \Rightarrow f(4)/f(2)=8/6=4/3[/itex]
(same reason)

But then [itex]3/2=4/3[/itex] (absurd!)

If we want to prove that the relation [itex]\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n = \prod_{n=0}^\infty f_n(a_n)[/itex] is impossible, you can do that as well.
More generally, we can prove that it's impossible to have

[tex]\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n = f(a_0)g(a_1,a_2,\ldots)[/tex] for all sequences [itex]a_n[/itex].
Of course, the first relation is a particular case with [itex]f(x)=f_0(x) \wedge g(x_1,x_2,\ldots)=\prod_{n=1}^\infty f_n(x_n)[/itex]

Suppose that it was possible. Then, for [itex]a_n[/itex] with [itex]a_n=2^{-n}[/itex] we have

[itex]2=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n=f(a_0)g(a_1,a_2,\ldots)=f(1)g(1/2,1/4,\ldots)[/itex]

and,for [itex]a_n[/itex] with [itex]a_0=2[/itex] and [itex]a_n=2^{-n} (n>0)[/itex],

[itex]3=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n=f(a_0)g(a_1,a_2,\ldots)=f(2)g(1/2,1/4,\ldots)[/itex]

Again, dividing the second equation by the first we get [itex]f(2)/f(1)=3/2[/itex]

For [itex]a_n[/itex] with [itex]a_0=1[/itex] and [itex]a_n=2^{-(n-1)} (n>0)[/itex] we have

[itex]3=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n=f(a_0)g(a_1,a_2,\ldots)=f(1)g(1,1/2,\ldots)[/itex]

and,for [itex]a_n[/itex] with [itex]a_0=2[/itex] and [itex]a_n=2^{-(n-1)} (n>0)[/itex],

[itex]4=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n=f(a_0)g(a_1,a_2,\ldots)=f(2)g(1,1/2,\ldots)[/itex]

So, [itex]f(2)/f(1)=4/3[/itex] and [itex]3/2=4/3[/itex] (absurd!)

It is also true that we can't have a.b=f(a)+g(b) for some functions f and g and for all a and b,
or [itex]\prod_{n=0}^\infty a_n = \sum_{n=0}^\infty f_n(a_n)[/itex] (the proofs would be similar).
 

Suggested for: Is it possible to transform infinite sums into infinite products?

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
390
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
31
Views
6K
Top