B Weird stuff on infinite numerical sequences in a Soviet book

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a sequence presented in a Soviet book, "Calculus: Basic Concepts for High School," which begins with 1, -1, 1/3, -1/3, etc. There is concern about the legitimacy of including a term with a coefficient of 1/0 for the first term, as it does not correspond to any natural number. Participants suggest starting the sequence at n=2 or making a shift, noting that for analysis, omitting finitely many terms is often acceptable. The conversation also highlights that sequences can be defined on any infinite subset of natural numbers, emphasizing the importance of clarifying any restrictions on n. Overall, the sequence's definition raises questions about its validity and the implications of its initial term.
inthenickoftime
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
It looks like an undefined operation
The book is Calculus: Basic Concepts for High School
on the first page you are given the following sequence:

1, -1, 1/3, -1/3, 1/5, -1/5, 1/7, -1/7, ...

several pages later the rule is given:

Untitled.jpg

in the second rule, for the first term in the sequence, the coefficient of one of the terms is 1/0. How legitimate is this?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Start with ##n=2## instead of ##n=1## or make a shift. For most purposes in analysis, leaving out finitely many terms of a sequence doesn't matter since we are mostly interested in the tail of the sequence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes inthenickoftime
Math_QED said:
Start with ##n=2## instead of ##n=0## or make a shift. For most purposes in analysis, leaving out finitely many terms of a sequence doesn't matter since we are mostly interested in the tail of the sequence.
It still feels weird. On the previous page the author gives his definition of an infinite numerical sequence as a rule assigning every natural number to a definite term in the sequence, but 1 doesn't correspond with anything, at least for the given expression. But I see what you mean
 
inthenickoftime said:
It still feels weird. On the previous page the author gives his definition of an infinite numerical sequence as a rule assigning every natural number to a definite term in the sequence, but 1 doesn't correspond with anything, at least for the given expression. But I see what you mean
You can define a sequence on any infinite subset of the natural numbers. In other words, you can do things like:

Define the sequence for ##n = n_0, n_0 +1, n_0 + 2 \dots##, where ##n_0## can be any starting number.

Define the sequence for odd, even or square or prime ##n##. For example, you could define a sequence as ##a_n##, where ##n## is prime.

That said, in all these cases you ought to make clear the restriction on ##n##. E.g. ##n \ge 2## or ##n## even or ##n## prime etc.
 
  • Like
Likes inthenickoftime
PeroK said:
You can define a sequence on any infinite subset of the natural numbers. In other words, you can do things like:

Define the sequence for ##n = n_0, n_0 +1, n_0 + 2 \dots##, where ##n_0## can be any starting number.

Define the sequence for odd, even or square or prime ##n##. For example, you could define a sequence as ##a_n##, where ##n## is prime.

That said, in all these cases you ought to make clear the restriction on ##n##. E.g. ##n \ge 2## or ##n## even or ##n## prime etc.
No restrictions were given. You can check the book online for free, it was rewritten in modern style. Too bad as I was really looking forward to it.
 
The yn pattern listed there only applies to n>1, for y1 it does not apply. If you care about the absolute value of the limit you need to consider y1 separately, if you only care about convergence you do not.
 
  • Like
Likes inthenickoftime
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