1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + . . .
The series above diverges, of course. Its Abel sum is defined as
A = x → 1 − lim n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( − 1 ) n + 1 n x n
Find A to three significant figures. Enter 666 if you come to the conclusion that no such Abel sum A exists.
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.
Using Maclaurin expansion, we have ( 1 + x ) 2 1 = n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( − 1 ) n + 1 n ! x n .
Log in to reply
I don't get this one. Is that a factorial in the power series?!
Hana's solution of ( 1 + x ) 2 1 is incorrect.
Log in to reply
Hana factors out an x ... her formula is correct.
I'm not so sure about your formula ( 1 + x ) 2 1 = ∑ n = 0 ∞ ( − 1 ) n + 1 n ! x n , though ;)
Yes, very nice, Comrade! (+1) This is analogous to Hana's solution but written out in more detail. Now, can you apply this technique here ? ;)
1 − 2 x + 3 x 2 − 4 x 3 + . . . = ( 1 + x ) 2 1 = 4 1 as x goes to 1.
Thus, A= l i m x → 1 − ( 1 + x ) 2 1 = 4 1 =0.25
I am just trying to add to other solutions, hopefully, I came up with something impressive. If not, be easy with me :)
I took the ∑ n = 1 i n f i n i t y n ( − x ) n − 1
Exactly! (+1) Your solution is short, simple, and elegant... impressive indeed! Thank you!
1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + . . . = S 1 − S = 1 − ( 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + . . ) 1 − S = S S = 2 1 Now let 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + . . . = S 1 S 1 + S 1 = 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + . . By shifting it up 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + . . . 2 S 1 = 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + . . . 2 S 1 = 2 1 = > S 1 = 4 1 = 0 . 2 5
That's how Euler did it. But this deduction does not live up to modern standards of rigor in analysis. We know that 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 . . . diverges, so , the equation 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + . . . = S is meaningless, although it does (mysteriously) produce the right answer. Euler himself was very puzzled by this result when he wrote in 1749: "...when it is said that the sum of this series 1−2+3−4+5−6 etc. is 1⁄4, that must appear paradoxical. For by adding 100 terms of this series, we get −50, however, the sum of 101 terms gives +51, which is quite different from 1⁄4 and becomes still greater when one increases the number of terms. But I have already noticed at a previous time, that it is necessary to give to the word sum a more extended meaning." This "extended meaning" was later introduced by Abel.
Log in to reply
Oh well this is the way howI was taught to estimate the 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + . . .
Sir basically, this is an airthmatic geometric mean that we calculated, isn't it?
Log in to reply
I don't see that... can you explain?
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Sorry I wanted to write A-GP series where we are using method of difference to solve this Abel problem, is that correct?
Log in to reply
@Righved K – Write it and show us, please!
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – This is what I meant.... A = x − 2 x 2 + 3 x 3 − 4 x 4 + . . . . . . . . . . − ( 1 ) x A = x 2 − 2 x 3 + 3 x 4 − . . . . . . . . . . . − ( 2 ) O n A d d i n g e q u a t i o n s ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) , w e g e t − ( 1 + x ) A = x − x 2 + x 3 − x 4 + x 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A = ( 1 + x ) 2 x O n p u t t i n g t h e l i m i t w e g e t − A = 4 1 the series defined by A is known as A-GP series(or Airthmatic Geometric progression Progression series)
Log in to reply
@Righved K – Yes, this is a good solution, equivalent to those written by Ms Nakkache and Comrade Cheong (+1). I don't really see how that relates to an arithmetic geometric mean, but that's just a matter of terminology. It's really all about geometric series.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – I am sorry for disturbing you before but actually I googled this series (and from there only I coined this series A-GP)..thank you for your reply sir!
Log in to reply
@Righved K – you initially talked about an "arithmetic geometric mean "... it was the term "mean" that confused me.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Yes sir I am sorry! Thanks once again!
I'm impressed that you remember that discussion! (+1) In some sense it's even easier to show directly that it's Abel summable.. let's wait for other solutions.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
A = x → 1 − lim n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( − 1 ) n + 1 n x n = x → 1 − lim n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( − 1 ) n + 1 x d x d x n = x → 1 − lim x d x d n = 0 ∑ ∞ ( − 1 ) n + 1 x n = x → 1 − lim x d x d ( − 1 + x 1 ) for ∣ x ∣ < 1 = x → 1 − lim ( 1 + x ) 2 x = 4 1 = 0 . 2 5