Non-commutativity of a limiting sum

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Unit
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the non-commutativity of limits and infinite sums, specifically examining the expression \(\lim_{x \to 1} \sum_1^\infty (x^{n-1} - x^n)\) versus \(\sum_1^\infty \lim_{x \to 1} (x^{n-1} - x^n)\). Participants explore the implications of taking limits in the context of infinite series and the conditions under which these operations can be interchanged.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether both expressions yield correct results, suggesting that the first equation should also equal 0.
  • Others emphasize that \(\lim_{x \to a} \sum^\infty_{n=1} f_n(x)\) and \(\sum^\infty_{n=1} \lim_{x \to a} f_n(x)\) are not generally equal without specific conditions being met.
  • Several participants note that the interpretation of the sums is crucial, highlighting that the sums \((1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots)\) and \((1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots)\) converge to the same value under certain conditions but are fundamentally different.
  • One participant points out that associativity in infinite sums is problematic unless the series converges absolutely, indicating that rearranging terms can affect the sum's value.
  • Another participant clarifies that the formal definition of an infinite series involves sequences of partial sums, which can lead to different convergence behaviors depending on how the series is structured.
  • There is a suggestion that the confusion arises from treating two different infinite series as if they were the same due to their appearance, despite their differing convergence properties.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the results of the limits and sums, with no consensus reached on whether the two expressions yield the same value or the conditions under which they can be interchanged.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the infinite sums only make sense when \(|x| \leq 1\), and the limits being taken approach 1 from both directions, which raises questions about the validity of the operations performed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying mathematical analysis, particularly in the context of limits and series, as well as individuals exploring the subtleties of convergence in infinite sums.

Unit
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
I read this in the appendix of Hardy's pure mathematics textbook and an explanation was not given:

[tex]\lim_{x \to 1} \sum_1^\infty \left( x^{n-1}-x^n \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} 1 = 1[/tex]

[tex]\sum_1^\infty \lim_{x \to 1} \left( x^{n-1}-x^n \right) = \sum_1^\infty \left( 1 - 1 \right) = 0 + 0 + 0 + \ldots = 0[/tex]

Are both answers correct? I thought that associativity only applied to a finite series of operations, which is why I think the first equation is wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's going on when you are taking the limit in the first equation? It seems to me that it also should be 0.

Note however that the infinite sums only make sense when |x| <= 1.

Remember that [tex]\lim_{x \to a } \sum^\infty_{n=1} f_n(x)[/tex] and [tex]\sum^\infty_{n=1} \lim_{x \to a } f_n(x)[/tex] are essentially two different things, and are only equal under certain conditions.
 
Last edited:
Jarle said:
What's going on when you are taking the limit in the first equation? It seems to me that it also should be 0.
[tex]\lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + 0 + 0 + \ldots \right) = 1[/tex]

This is what I meant by my associativity remark.
Jarle said:
Note however that the infinite sums only make sense when |x| <= 1.
In the limits, x approaches 1, meaning both [itex]\lim_{x \to 1^+}[/itex] and [itex]\lim_{x \to 1^-}[/itex]. Surely at least the "from below" limit is meets the |x| <= 1 condition?
 
Unit said:
[tex]\lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots \right) = \lim_{x \to 1} \left( 1 + 0 + 0 + \ldots \right) = 1[/tex]

Note that [tex]\left( 1 - x + (x - x^2) + \ldots \right)[/tex] and [tex]\left( 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2 + x^2) + \ldots \right)[/tex] are very different sums! They just happen to converge to the same value under certain conditions. That does not mean they necessarily behave equally. It must be clear what the consecutive terms are in the sum for it to make sense.


Unit said:
In the limits, x approaches 1, meaning both [itex]\lim_{x \to 1^+}[/itex] and [itex]\lim_{x \to 1^-}[/itex]. Surely at least the "from below" limit is meets the |x| <= 1 condition?

Yes, but my point was that in the first case you are taking the limit of a sum which requires that |x| <= 1 in the first place.
 
Last edited:
To avoid confusion: assume the limit has been removed (it doesn't exist) and instead we are just evaluating the series at x=1 (which does exist)

For infinite sums, associativity is sketchy. In particular, you can only do infinitely many re-arrangements if your sum converges absolutely, otherwise you might be changing the value.

For this particular example, the formal definition of an infinite series is being obscured to confuse you. Formally, an infinite series is a sequence of partial sums

[tex]S_1,S_2,S_3,...[/tex] where [tex]S_i[/tex] is the sum of the first [tex]i[/tex] terms. The series converges to whatever number the partial sums converge to

Writing [tex]\sum_1^\infty \left( x^{n-1}-x^n \right[/tex] means that [tex]S_1=1-x[/tex] and [tex]S_2=(1-x)+(x-x^2)[/tex] and [tex]S_3=(1-x)+(x-x^2)+(x^2-x^3)[/tex]. In general, [tex]S_n=1-x^n[/tex] and this converges to 0 as x goes to 1

The series being used to get a value of 1 (which is not properly written out) is
[tex]S_1=1[/tex] and [tex]S_2=1 + (-x + x)[/tex] and [tex]S_3= 1 + (-x + x) + (-x^2+x^2)[/tex] which of course has [tex]S_k=1[/tex] for all values of k.

To summarize, these are two entirely different infinite series. What makes them look similar is the fact that they can be disguised as being the same by looking at a third divergent series
[tex]S_1=1[/tex] and [tex]S_2=1-x[/tex] and [tex]S_3=1-x+x[/tex] and [tex]S_4=1-x+x-x^2[/tex] etc. Basically what has happened here is that there is a natural divergent series, and two different subsequences converging to different values were picked out of it. Because we're not very good intuitively at noticing this slight of hand, we assume that the two subsequences should converge to the same value, and are surprised when it doesn'tAs a final aside, you should always be careful about whether you can really move a limit from outside of an infinite series to inside of it.
 
Wow, Office_Shredder -- that was exceptionally well put. I understand completely! Thanks a lot!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K