Sum of Series w/ 2's & 3's: Find the Total

  • Thread starter Thread starter iNCREDiBLE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Series Sum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding the sum of the series consisting of the reciprocals of positive integers whose only prime factors are 2 and 3. Participants explore the use of sigma notation to express the series and recognize that it can be represented as a double sum. They confirm that the sum converges absolutely, allowing for rearrangement without changing the result. The final answer to the sum is suggested to be 3, with encouragement to explore alternative methods of calculation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of sigma notation in clarifying mathematical expressions.
iNCREDiBLE
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
find the sum of the series 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/8 + 1/9 + 1/12 + ...,
where the terms are the reciprocals of the positive integers whose only prime factors are 2's and 3's.

Here's my work so far:

1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/8 + 1/9 + 1/12 + ... =
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... + 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ... + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/18 + 1/24 + ... =
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... + 1 + 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + ... + 1 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/18 + 1/24 + ... - 2

Those first two are geometric series. I don't know what to do with the third one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try writing it in sigma notation. (Σ)
 
Hurkyl said:
Try writing it in sigma notation. (Σ)

:confused:
My problem is to find the value of 1 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/18 + 1/24 + 1/32 + 1/48 + 1/54...
 
That sum is no easier to calculate than the original sum. (In fact, I would be able to figure out the original sum faster than the one in your last post)

There are other ways to see how to approach this problem, but IMHO, writing it in sigma notation makes the right step much clearer.

In general, it's good practice to write sums in sigma notation anyways.
 
Last edited:
Hurkyl said:
That sum is no easier to calculate than the original sum. (In fact, I would be able to figure out the original sum faster than the one in your last post)

There are other ways to see how to approach this problem, but IMHO, writing it in sigma notation makes the right step much clearer.

In general, it's good practice to write sums in sigma notation anyways.

Well then my problem is "sigma notation". :cry:
 
Do you know how to write a simpler sum in sigma notation? Like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...?
 
Hurkyl said:
Do you know how to write a simpler sum in sigma notation? Like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...?

Yes.
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n}
 
Ok, good. Next question: what's the general form of a number whose prime factors are only 2 and 3?
 
Hurkyl said:
Ok, good. Next question: what's the general form of a number whose prime factors are only 2 and 3?

That's 2^n3^m
 
  • #10
So does that suggest how to write the sum of the reciprocals of every positive integer whose prime factors can only be 2's and 3's in sigma notation?
 
  • #11
Hurkyl said:
So does that suggest how to write the sum of the reciprocals of every positive integer whose prime factors can only be 2's and 3's in sigma notation?

Indeed. Is it going to be a double sum?
 
  • #12
Yes, it is!


Technical note: actually, the double sum is technically different from the original sum. However, the sum turns out to be absolutely convergent (the easiest way to see this fact is that it has no negative terms!), and this sort of "rearrangement" is perfectly legal with absolutely convergent sums, meaning that they'll give the same answer.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Hurkyl said:
Yes, it is!

And is the correct answer 3? :blushing:
 
  • #14
Sounds right. Well done! By the way, don't miss the technical note I edited into my last post.

By the way, now that you know how the problem is solved, it may be instructive to try and figure out how to do it without sigma notation. Then again, it might not be instructive too, I don't know. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Hurkyl said:
Sounds right. Well done! By the way, don't miss the technical note I edited into my last post.

By the way, now that you know how the problem is solved, it may be instructive to try and figure out how to do it without sigma notation. Then again, it might not be instructive too, I don't know. :smile:

Thanks for the technical note. Had forgot it. o:)
Without sigma notation? I have no clue at all :-p
 
  • #16
You had it as a double sum right? With a bit of rearranging you should be able to write it as a product of 2 infinite sums, which I suppose you could write without sigma notation if you liked. I'd suggest you try this as the product form you'll get is quite cute and worth the effort.
 
  • #17
shmoe said:
You had it as a double sum right? With a bit of rearranging you should be able to write it as a product of 2 infinite sums, which I suppose you could write without sigma notation if you liked. I'd suggest you try this as the product form you'll get is quite cute and worth the effort.

Yes, that's exactly what I did.
 
Back
Top