Insights Series in Mathematics: From Zeno to Quantum Theory

AI Thread Summary
Series are fundamental in mathematics, tracing their significance from ancient philosophers like Zeno and Archimedes to modern applications in calculus and quantum theory. They serve as essential tools in various mathematical branches, often expressed through analytical or holomorphic functions. The discussion raises critical questions about the nature of series, such as the starting point of counting, the concept of infinity, and the origins of the terms involved. The title of the discussion was altered, leading to some contention about its focus. Overall, the interplay between historical context and modern applications of series highlights their ongoing importance in mathematical theory.
fresh_42
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
2024 Award
Messages
20,680
Reaction score
28,010
Introduction

Series play a decisive role in many branches of mathematics. They accompanied mathematical developments from Zeno of Elea (##5##-th century BC) and Archimedes of Syracuse (##3##-th century BC), to the fundamental building blocks of calculus from the ##17##-th century on, up to modern Lie theory which is crucial for our understanding of quantum theory. Series are probably the second most important objects in mathematics after functions. And the latter have often been expressed by series, especially in analysis. The term analytical function or holomorphic function represents such an identification.
A series itself is just an expression
$$
\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n =a_1+a_2+\ldots+a_n+\ldots
$$
but this simple formula is full of possibilities. It foremost contains some more or less obvious questions:

Do we always have to start counting at one?
What does infinity mean?
Where are the ##a_n## from?
Can we meaningfully assign a value ##\displaystyle{\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n=c}##...

Continue reading...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Janosh89, bhobba, WWGD and 5 others
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Where is the quantum theory and where did you use reference [7]?
 
martinbn said:
Where is the quantum theory and where did you use reference [7]?
Greg changed the title without asking me. My title was only "Mathematical Series". The word 'Mathematical' was already a concession. I would have called it just "Series".

It is possible to write an article with that actual title, and Dieudonné did write the middle part of such an article (17th to 19th century) but it took him several hundred pages - without Zeno, Archimedes, and Bohr.

I mentioned QM/Lie theory in the introduction and one can find a proof for Ad exp = exp ad in Varadarajan [7]. Maybe it should have been placed behind the formula, but I didn't want it to conflict with "(*)" which I needed for reference, so I chose the second-best location for [7].
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes bhobba and berkeman
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top