Why Does Sum of Infinity Equal Infinity?

SpaceDomain
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
I know that

<br /> \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty{1} = \infty <br />

But I don't understand why.

It seems to me that since the constant inside the summation is not dependent upon n it can be moved outside the summation. Then there is nothing to sum. It seems to me that

<br /> \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty{1} <br />

should equal 1.

What am I missing?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your logic is incorrect. The sum is 1+1+1+1+... no matter how you slice it.

You can take the 1 outside the sum, but you still have 1 inside, not 0. 1x0=0, not =1.
 
I thought the summation just vanished if there was no "argument" inside it.

That makes a lot more sense of why the summation is a discrete analogue of an integral.

Thank you for the help.
 
SpaceDomain said:
I know that

<br /> \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty{1} = \infty <br />

But I don't understand why.

It seems to me that since the constant inside the summation is not dependent upon n it can be moved outside the summation. Then there is nothing to sum.

You can change
\sum_{n=1}^N1
to
(N\cdot1)+\sum_{n=1}^N0=N
by 'pulling out the 1'. In your infinite sum, proceeding formally, this would give you
\sum_{n=1}^\infty1
to
(\infty\cdot1)+\sum_{n=1}^\infty0=\infty
which shows (in a non-rigorous way) that the sum diverges.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top