1 1 + 1 + 2 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 1 + ⋯
Find the value of the sum to 2 decimal places.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
May I know the steps to how from n(n+1)/2 when inserted in infinite series it became 2/n(n+1)? Thanks!
Log in to reply
The n th term in the series is 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + n 1 .
If 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + n = 2 n ( n + 1 ) , then what is 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + n 1 ?
I used the same fact but made it somewhat harder for my self to prove that the sum equal n + 1 2 n which gives 2 for n near infinity.
Log in to reply
How about you post your solution?
Log in to reply
I actually did this while trying to get to sleep without any paper... So i can try and post it later on again.
Log in to reply
@Peter van der Linden – I am looking forward to that
Can someone explain 2/n(n+1)=2/n-2/n+1?
Log in to reply
The fraction n ( n + 1 ) 1 can be written as n ( n + 1 ) ( n + 1 ) − n . Do you see how to proceed from here?
I couldn't understand a thing..please try and make things more clear..thanks
Log in to reply
Where are you lost? What are you struggling with?
The question asked us to find the value of the series, which can be found via partial fractions accompanied by telescoping sum.
Why we should 1+2+3...........+n and be n(n+1)/2?
Log in to reply
This result is proved in the sum of n, n², or n³ wiki. You may read the wiki to see how the expression is derived.
But the sum of the first 3 terms already adds up to 2: 1 + 1/3 + 1/6 = 2. Wouldn't the next terms increase the series?
Let a n refer the n-th term in the above sequence of sum a 1 = 1 = 2 − 2 2 a 2 = 3 1 = 2 2 − 3 2 a 3 = 6 1 = 3 2 − 4 2 … a n = n 2 − n + 1 2 Add up all those, till n → ∞ S = 2 − 2 2 + 2 2 − 3 2 + 3 2 − 4 2 + … + n 2 − n + 1 2 S = 2 + ( 0 + 0 + 0 + … + 0 + 0 ) Since, ∞ 1 = 0 S = 2
This approach is valid, but unfortunately, not rigorous. We cannot really take n = ∞ . Can we? The sequence is only defined for elements in N . Also, what does it mean to divide 1 by ∞ . ∞ is not a real number.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
This is not the proper solution to show that the series converges to 2.
The proper way to do it is, is to show that the partial sum converges to 2. Setting n= infty is not the proper math notation.
Plus, you didn't explain why a(n) = 2/n - 2/(n+1) for all n=1,2,3,4,5,....
Shouldn't the answer be 1.9 repeating as we will never actually reach 2?
Log in to reply
This sum will never be 2 in Real time. So the answer shoukd be 1.99. Am i wrong?
Log in to reply
What do you mean by "real time"? The answer is equal to 1.99 if the sum is 1 1 + 1 + 2 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 1 + ⋯ + 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + 1 9 9 1 . .
Log in to reply
yes it will always be 1.99999999 never 2 unless we take infinite terms. :)
it will be 2 if terms as infinite if u take a biliion terms it is 1.99999 the limit of this is 2 as u take infinite terms it becomes 2 any less terms and answer is extremely close to 2 like 1.9999999999..
The limit tends to 2 as number of terms goes to infinity. This means that we can get as close as we want to 2 by adding sufficiently many terms.
Yes, I think you are right. Maybe the question should have asked the limit of the infinite sum as n approaches infinity rather than the actual sum of these terms.
Log in to reply
There's a ⋯ at the end of the expression, so it means that there are infinitely many terms.
1 1 + 1 + 2 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 1 + . . . = 2 1 ⋅ 2 1 + 2 2 ⋅ 3 1 + 2 3 ⋅ 4 1 + . . . = 2 ( 1 ⋅ 2 1 + 2 ⋅ 3 1 + 3 ⋅ 4 1 + . . . ) = 2 ( 1 ⋅ 2 2 − 1 + 2 ⋅ 3 3 − 2 + 3 ⋅ 4 4 − 3 + . . . ) = 2 ( 1 ⋅ 2 2 − 1 ⋅ 2 1 + 2 ⋅ 3 3 − 2 ⋅ 3 2 + 3 ⋅ 4 4 − 3 ⋅ 4 3 + . . . ) = 2 ( 1 1 − 2 1 + 2 1 − 3 1 + 3 1 − 4 1 + . . . ) = 2 ( 1 1 ) = 2
Nice solution. I think it is worthwhile mentioning that the sum of first n natural numbers is 2 n ( n + 1 ) and actually explaining what the ⋯ notation actually reflects.
Smart answer!
Nice algebraic manipulation!
for k=500..10000 by 500
{
set sum to 0
for i=1..k by 1
{
set den to 0
set num to 1
for j=1..i by 1
{
change den by j
}
change sum by (num/den)
}
print sum
}
// observe convergence for large n to 2
This is wrong. You have only shown that the series is approximately equal to 2, but you didn't show that the series is exactly equal to 2.
In these problems, generalizing the series helps a lot.
denominator is nothing but sum to 'n' terms.
Then, we get, n ( n + 1 ) 2
When we have product of 2 terms in denominator, splitting them into 2 individual terms helps most of the time.
So, we get n 2 − n + 1 2 and n ranges from 1 to inf.
If we expand the series above, we get first term 2 and last term as (2/inf) and middle terms all cancels out.
We will get the final answer as 2
1 + 2 + 3 + • • • + n = n( n + 1)/2 Simple, really.
Your solution is not clear. What does this formula have to do with the problem?
My Java implementation:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
|
This is a good start to guess if the numerical value of the limit.
However, you have only shown that the nearest integer to 1 1 + 1 + 2 1 + 1 + 2 + 3 1 + ⋯ + 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + 1 9 9 9 1 is 2, which is different from what the question is asking.
Proving that the series is EXACTLY equal to 2 is not the same as proving that the sum of the first 1999 terms of this series is approximately 2.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Telescoping Series - Sum
Since 1 + 2 + 3 + ⋯ + n = 2 n ( n + 1 ) the given infinite series has partial sums
n = 1 ∑ N n ( n + 1 ) 2 = n = 1 ∑ N ( n 2 − n + 1 2 ) = 1 2 − N + 1 2 N → ∞ 2 .