What is the Limit of Complex Summation for Unity Roots as n Approaches Infinity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the limit of complex summation for unity roots as n approaches infinity. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and interpretations related to the behavior of these sums, touching on concepts from geometry, complex analysis, and limits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that as k increases, the points representing unity roots decrease, suggesting a potential issue with earlier assumptions.
  • One participant describes the summand as a difference of two summations, questioning the cancellation of terms.
  • Another participant reports obtaining a limit of 0, expressing confusion about this result.
  • There is a suggestion that the limit could be 2, but this is not universally accepted.
  • Participants discuss the manipulation of terms and the implications of absolute values in the summation, leading to an indeterminate form that may require L'Hospital's rule.
  • One participant presents a geometric interpretation, stating that the distance between consecutive roots of unity approaches the perimeter of a circle as n tends to infinity.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to evaluate the sum of identical terms after determining the absolute value, which is independent of k.
  • There is a mention of the geometric representation of the roots of unity and how they form a polygon whose edges become infinitesimally short as n increases.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some agreeing on the geometric interpretation while others challenge the mathematical manipulations and conclusions drawn. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the limit.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the dependence on definitions and the potential for indeterminate forms in their calculations. There are unresolved mathematical steps that contribute to the uncertainty in the conclusions drawn.

bobn
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I tried integration then applying limit as n tends to infinity, for k = 1, it becomes a circle, but as k increases, points decrease hence it should be wrong.
 

Attachments

  • u.JPG
    u.JPG
    3.4 KB · Views: 444
Physics news on Phys.org
The summand is of the form [F(k) - F(k-1)], which is the sum of
F(k) minus the sum of F(k-1). The second summation contains almost all the terms of the first summation.
 
tried in this way, I am getting 0, but that shouldn't be...
 
is it 2??
 
What are the two terms that do not cancel?
 
did lil. bit manipulation but it seems weird now.
 
f(x) =sum | e^k - e^k/e| where e = e^2pi i/n n roots of unity.

f(x) =sum |e^k|/|e| *[|e-1|] = n*[|e-1|] = 2n sin pi/n ; which diverges...
 
Put f(k) = exp(2 pi i k/n)

Then the summation is the difference of:

f(1) + f(2) + ...f(n-1) +f(n)

and

f(0) + f(1) + f(2)+...+f(n-1)

If you subtract these two summations from each other, what are you left with?
 
Count Iblis said:
The summand is of the form [F(k) - F(k-1)], which is the sum of
F(k) minus the sum of F(k-1). The second summation contains almost all the terms of the first summation.

No, it isn't. There's an absolute sign, so it's really of the form |F(k) - F(k - 1)|. You need to take a common factor from both terms and use the properties of absolute values (|z1*z2| = |z1|*|z2| and so on). You should get an indeterminate expression of the form 0.[itex]\infty[/itex] and use L'Hospital's rule to obtain the limit.
 
  • #10
Ah, I see that I really do need new glasses!
 
  • #11
Dickfore said:
No, it isn't. There's an absolute sign, so it's really of the form |F(k) - F(k - 1)|. You need to take a common factor from both terms and use the properties of absolute values (|z1*z2| = |z1|*|z2| and so on). You should get an indeterminate expression of the form 0.[itex]\infty[/itex] and use L'Hospital's rule to obtain the limit.

but as its modulus, common factor will 1; absolute value of n roots of equity will be 1.

??
 
  • #12
bobn said:
but as its modulus, common factor will 1; absolute value of n roots of equity will be 1.

??

That's right, so the summand does not depend on k anymore, making it very easy to compute the sum.
 
  • #13
There is also a geometric way to see what the answer is: If you look at where the terms exp(2 pi i k/n) and exp(2 pi i (k-1)/n) on the complex plane are, you see that they are located on the unit circle. Then you can say something about the distance between the two points in terms of the polar angle difference between the two points when n is very large.
 
  • #14
bobn said:
...absolute value of n roots of equity will be 1.??

No. What remains in the absolute value is a complex number whose absolute value is not equal to one. But, as a poster above me had noticed, it is independent of k, so it is just a sum of n identical terms. After you evaluate this finite sum, only then do you take the limit [itex]n \rightarrow \infty[/itex].
 
  • #15
its easier to solve this logically,

the term is distance between two consecutive roots of unity, so, for n = 3 its equi triangle, 4 its square, so as n tends to infinity it becomes a circle, and sum of distance between all points will be its perimeter on unit circle.

so the limit tends to 2 pi.
 
  • #16
geometrically the difference |f(k)-f(k-1)| is a particular edge of a polygon with n edges connecting unity roots.

n=3 case:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/3rd-roots-of-unity.png

for n->∞ it approach a circle. because we add up the edges which are going to be infinitely short.

ps:
sum |f k - f k-1| >= sum |f k| - sum |f k-1| if I'm not mistaken.
and for unity roots z_k we have 0=p(z)= z^n-1, if one takes the linear factors it is obvious that the sum of unity roots z_k from k=0 to n-1 is zero and the product is (-1)^(n-1).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K