1 − 2 1 + 2 1 − 3 1 + 3 1 − 4 1 + 4 1 − ⋯ = 1 This infinite telescoping sum converges to 1 , partly because all the terms except 1 get cancelled.
Can we say that the infinite telescoping product below also converges to 1 for a similar reason?
2 1 × 3 2 × 4 3 × 5 4 × 6 5 × 7 6 × ⋯ = 1
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.
I like the Simplicity of your argument Stephen !
Excellent solution - short and simple.
wow 200 iq
Given the answer required is yes or no, then this is a fine answer. But the more elegant answer is below that the value of the series approaches zero.
Log in to reply
No, this answer the question and the proof is shorter, thus it is more elegant.
My thoughts exactly. Thus, as each term lowers the value at a decreasing wait, we can say the limit is 0.
you can think this way only and only if the number of elements is finite.
P = 2 1 × 3 2 × 4 3 × ⋯ = n → ∞ lim 2 1 × 3 2 × 4 3 × ⋯ × n − 1 n − 2 × n n − 1 × n + 1 n = n → ∞ lim 2 1 × 3 2 × 4 3 × ⋯ × n − 1 n − 2 × n n − 1 × n + 1 n = n → ∞ lim n + 1 1 = 0 = 1
⟹ No , the limit is not 1 but 0.
Devil is in the detail.... I forgot the denominator...
Log in to reply
You forgot the L'Hospital's rule step where it the limit equates to 0 / 1.
But all the numbers ahead are close to one so how can their product be zero? I could not get the intuition of it...
Log in to reply
But all the numbers before are cancelled out leaving the first nominator the last denominator.
I completely missed this point. Now I am scratching my head about the same thing. The only thing intuitive about this for me is that the denominator grows to infinity. And the numerator stays at 1. That's what makes it equal zero. If I think about each term along the way, I lose all intuitive bearings. It would make more intuitive sense to me if it kept getting smaller but never reached zero. I gues that's one of those neat things about limits.
" Chew-Seong Cheong " what you have done is wrong !!!. What you gave us cannot be a proof . Multiply the first fraction by 1 in the denominator and it will change the limite ( using your methode ) : P = lim (n!)/(n!) = 1 therefore Lim p = 1 and not zero. 1 is neutral as a number and it is not supposed to change the lim P. How can you explain this ?.
Log in to reply
You are right. But P = n → ∞ lim n ! n ! . It is P = n → ∞ lim ( n + 1 ) ! n ! = n → ∞ lim n + 1 1 = 0 . Note that every denominator is always larger than the nominator by 1.
Before we deal with the infinite telescoping series , ∑ n = 1 ∞ n ( n + 1 ) 1 we must be careful about the partial sum of the series. The partial sum of the telescoping series above can be written as n = 1 ∑ m n ( n + 1 ) 1 = 1 − m + 1 1 Now when m → ∞ then m → ∞ lim n = 1 ∑ m n ( n + 1 ) 1 = 1 − m + 1 1 = 1 − ∞ + 1 1 = 1 − 0 = 1
On the same way the partial product of telescoping product when m → ∞ is m → ∞ lim n = 1 ∏ m = 1 × m + 1 1 = 1 × ∞ × m 1 = 0
Hence, the answer is No .
Very easy question bro. Give me some challanging one. 😁 😂 😅 😆
If you don't mind can you explain what's wrong with my reasoning here. (a/b)(c/d) = ac/bd so the infinite product can be written as 1x2x3x4.../2x3x4x5.... multiplying anything by 1 doesn't change the number so you can remove the 1 from the numerator without changing it's value therefore you have 2x3x4x5.../2x3x4x5... it looks to me like the numerator and denominator would be the same and therefor the product would equal 1
Log in to reply
Let's say that our series is only 3 terms long. Then our series would look something like a/b x b/c x c/d or abc/bcd. Removing all similar terms, we get a/d. Since we know each subsequent term in our series gets closer towards 0 or rather, the denominator of each subsequent fraction is larger than the previous, then our series tends towards 0 the longer the series is. Using your example as a case for four terms, we see that (1)(2)(3)(4)/(2)(3)(4)(5) is the product of the series or 1/5. TL;DR the more terms in your series, the smaller your product will be, with the largest value possible being 1/2 (since that's the product of the series when there is one term). Thus, the telescoping product is never equal to 1.
Series (1/2) (2/3) (3/4) ... Is converges but when you convert it to (1 2 3 ...)/(2 3 4 ...) the game has changed. Because now both of this new series is diverges and you have (infinity/infinity), so the sum of the second series is undefined. Which means that (1/2) (2/3) (3/4) ... is not equal to (1 2 3 ...)/(2 3 4 ...) and not equal to 1 (2 3 ...)/(2 3 4 ...).
Log in to reply
This reminds me about this video from Mathologer: https://youtu.be/YuIIjLr6vUA Where he explains why 1+2+3+4+... is not equal to -1/12
Hi but then it eventually gets multiplied by ∞ ∞ so it is the indeterminate form therefore it is 0, 1 or anything? sorry, that is very unconventional of me I guess but it does make it so that the terms cancelling out still works
NO.
Let's say that both series ends with infinity which is x.
The telescoping sum would become
1 = 1 - 1/2 + 1/2 - ... + 1/(x-1) - 1/x + 1/x - 1/(x+1)
Everything would cancel and we will be left with
1 = 1 - 1/(x+1)
A number added to infinity is still infinity,
1 = 1 - 1/x
1 divided by infinity would grow smaller and smaller until it can just become 0.
1 = 1 - 0
Proving the telescoping sum correct.
But, for the telescoping product, we have
1 = (1/2)(2/3)(3/4)...((x-1)/x)(x/(x+1))
Everything would cancel until we have
1 = 1/(x+1)
As we said before, infinity added to anything is infinity, and anything divided by infinity is 0.
1 = 0
The answer to the telescoping product is 0, not 1.
Hence, the answer is no.
You could also look at it by multiplying both sides by (x+1), and we will get
x+1 = 1
Since x is not 0, this equation will not work.
(my cheap version)
Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but I saw that the above could be rewritten as ( n + 1 ) ! n ! ; thus, it is clear that l i m n → ∞ ( n + 1 ) ! n ! = 0 . Is this oversimplified? Do let me know!
This is the easiest and the most evident solution I can guess too : n! /(n+1)!= 1/(n+1) so when n approaches infinity the result is 0 and not 1.
If you shift just the denominators 1 place to the right (and loop n around to the first place) you get:
n 1 × 2 2 × 3 3 × 4 4 × . . .
The product of the first two terms is 1/3, and the product of that and the third term is 1/4, and the product of that and the fourth term is 1/5, and so on, for a product that is the limit of 1/n as n approaches infinity: Zero.
We get the infinite sum as 0 which is not equal to 1
Each subsequent term after 1/2 makes the result smaller. So the series cannot tend to 1.
The denumerator of the last term doesn't get cancelled.
If you multiply 1/2 by any number less than one (which would include all proper fractions), the product will be less than 1/2. Multiplying by additional proper fractions reduces the value further. Therefore, since the product will always be less than 1/2, then the product can never be equal to 1.
Less than 1 × less than 1 will always be less than itself, such as .9×.9= .81, which is less than .9. An infinite amount of "times" would reach 0 (or infinitely close to 0).
I don’t think you can get 1 by times-ing by numbers less than 1
Even if all the fractions in the middle cancel out, there will be the 1 at the beginning and an infinitely large number as a factor in the denominator that does not get cancelled. Therefore the answer should be 1 divided by an infinitely large number equals 0.
The expression is in the form :
2 1 × 3 2 × 4 3 × 5 4 . . . . . . . . . . × n n − 1
So it is clear that every term get's cancelled except the first term that is 1 and the last term that is n .
Therefore the expression doesn't converge to 1 .
All of the numbers in the second one are fractions less than 1 . The product of any numbers that are all less than one cannot equal one.
It can never be one as the product of the two numerators will always be less than the product of the denominators.
Somewhere (inf.-1)÷ inf. will come so it will become (inf.-1)×(1÷inf.), so the product will become 0.
In such a product the number we divide by is constantly growing. Thus, finally (if there can be a "final") we get one, divided by infinity. Such a number is very close to zero, and it cannot converge to 1 anyway. Therefore the right answer is "no". P.S. Sorry for my English if I made a mistake somewhere. Russian is my native language.
For the sum, it would be 1. But for the product, it would be 1/2 2/3 3/4 ... [(n-1)/n]*[n/(n+1)]=1/(n+1) which is definitely not equal to 1.
The maximum value is (n-1)/n which practically results in 0.99999999999.. .. which is not equal '1'
I hope this is right, but if you use logarithms you get: log 2 1 log 3 2 log 4 3 whic equals: log 1(=0) - log 2 + log 2 - log 3 + log 3... where you can cancel all the logarithms except log 1 which is zero
1/2 x 2/3 becomes two thirds of a half. That multiplied by 3/4 becomes three quarters of two thirds of a half. That pattern goes on. In the end, the final result will be close to a half, but not approach half. With each multiplication step, the number goes further from 1/2, but each step away from 1/2 is smaller. Hence, the result is a bit close to 1/2, but it never nears it.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Quite simply (without algebra), the first term of the product is 2 1 and then you are multiplying by numbers which are all less than 1. Therefore the product can never be greater than 2 1 so does not equal 1