- #1

- 278

- 0

- Thread starter V0ODO0CH1LD
- Start date

- #1

- 278

- 0

- #2

mathman

Science Advisor

- 7,877

- 453

For a sequence to become a series you need addition to be defined.

- #3

- 278

- 0

So I've been looking into it and I think that might not be the case. As far as I understood it series (over a set ##X##?) behave like elements of a free abelian group or free Z-module with basis ##X##. So that even if there's no operation defined on ##X## I can define series over it. I don't get why does the set of all series over a set ##X## needs to have all properties of a free abelian group. So I am still confused.. Slightly less then before though!For a sequence to become a series you need addition to be defined.

- #4

pwsnafu

Science Advisor

- 1,080

- 85

You really want the notion of net not sequence. It has the same properties but only needs a directed set.I know I can define a sequence on a set ##X## as a function ##a:T\rightarrow{}X##, where ##T## is a countable totally ordered set.

- #5

- 278

- 0

I though nets generalized sequences not series.You really want the notion of net not sequence. It has the same properties but only needs a directed set.

- #6

mathman

Science Advisor

- 7,877

- 453

An Abelian group (or Z module) has an addition operation (by definition).So I've been looking into it and I think that might not be the case. As far as I understood it series (over a set ##X##?) behave like elements of a free abelian group or free Z-module with basis ##X##. So that even if there's no operation defined on ##X## I can define series over it. I don't get why does the set of all series over a set ##X## needs to have all properties of a free abelian group. So I am still confused.. Slightly less then before though!

- #7

WWGD

Science Advisor

Gold Member

2019 Award

- 5,417

- 3,501

- #8

WWGD

Science Advisor

Gold Member

2019 Award

- 5,417

- 3,501

A series is a sequence of partial sums.I though nets generalized sequences not series.

- #9

- 278

- 0

If you want to talk about convergence of a sequence or series you need the sequence or series to be defined on a topological space, but I don't need the notion of convergence to define sequence and series.

Sure, but the Z-module is the set of series over a set not the set itself. That means I can sum series to each other and get a third series, but addition for the terms of the series is still not required.An Abelian group (or Z module) has an addition operation (by definition).

But I am fine with the generalization of sequences on a set as functions from countable totally ordered sets to that set.. My question is regarding generalizations of series given that definition of sequences not about generalization sequences into nets.A series is a sequence of partial sums.

My question is: If I have a sequence ##a:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow{}X## and a function ##\sigma:X^\mathbb{N}\rightarrow{}Z## defined as

[tex] \sigma:a\mapsto\sum_{n=0}^\infty{}a(n) [/tex]

that maps a sequence in ##X## to an infinite series in ##X##, why does the set ##Z## have to be a free Z-module? (note: notice that the set ##X## does not have to be a semigroup with addition defined on it or a topological space).

- #10

pwsnafu

Science Advisor

- 1,080

- 85

I'm pretty sure you don't need abelian. A semigroup seems strong enough.Sure, but the Z-module is the set of series over a set not the set itself. That means I can sum series to each other and get a third series, but addition for the terms of the series is still not required.

I brought up nets, not for the sequence→net generalisation, but to get you to abandon sequence→series and replace it with net→some-net-equivalent-of-series.But I am fine with the generalization of sequences on a set as functions from countable totally ordered sets to that set.. My question is regarding generalizations of series given that definition of sequences not about generalization sequences into nets.

Also why do you insist on "countable totally ordered set". Series is more general than that to begin with.

- #11

- 269

- 24

- #12

- 269

- 24

- #13

disregardthat

Science Advisor

- 1,861

- 34

The wikipedia article on series generalize series to apply to semigroups. You need only a set to define a sequence. But you need a topological space to talk of convergence, and the space must be hausdorff in order for the limit (if it exists) to be unique. So I would say that what we need is at least a topological semigroup which is hausdorff to talk of convergent series. A topological semigroup is a topological space X with a continuous multiplication function ##m: X \times X \to X## defining an operation * on elements on X. This way we may form partial "sums" ##x_1, x_1*x_2, x_1*x_2*x_3,...## for any sequence ##x_1,x_2,...##

The multiplication function must be continuous because (for example) we want to say that if ##x_n## converges to x, then ##y*x_n## converges to y*x.

If you want to operation to commute with elements, you will require the semigroup to be abelian. If you want an identity for the multiplication, we need a topological monoid. If you want inverses, a topological group. If you want multiplication and addition, you would need a topological ring, etc... finally, ##\mathbb{R}## is a topological field.

The multiplication function must be continuous because (for example) we want to say that if ##x_n## converges to x, then ##y*x_n## converges to y*x.

If you want to operation to commute with elements, you will require the semigroup to be abelian. If you want an identity for the multiplication, we need a topological monoid. If you want inverses, a topological group. If you want multiplication and addition, you would need a topological ring, etc... finally, ##\mathbb{R}## is a topological field.

Last edited:

- #14

disregardthat

Science Advisor

- 1,861

- 34

##x_1, x_1x_2, x_1x_2x_3,... ##

However, this would leave the set X, and the series would be defined by a sequence of terms not in X, but in S, the free semigroup generated by X. To speak of convergence in such a construction, we depend on what topology we give S. Now, as a set, S is on the form ##S=X \sqcup X \times X \sqcup X \times X \times X \sqcup ... = \bigsqcup^{\infty}_{n=0} X^n##. We could give it its natural topology: ##X^n## has the product topology for each n, and the infinite disjoint union the naturally induced topology generated by the topologies on ##X^n## for each n.

Now.. the big question is what does convergence mean here? The problem is that the terms of the sequence (which is on the form ##x_1, x_1x_2, x_1x_2x_3,... ## are in separate (connected or not) components of S. That means it can never converge. The reason being that if it supposedly converged to x, then x must be a point in one of these components (the m'th component ##X^m##, say). But the terms of the partial sums will eventually leave the m'th component indefinitely.

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 33

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 24

- Views
- 8K

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 4K