The sum of positive integers up to infinity: Was Sirinivasa right?

  • #1
Walid-yahya
2
0
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_١٨٣٨٢٦_289.jpg
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_١٨٣٨٣٦_426.jpg
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_١٨٣٨٤٥_443.jpg
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What did you want to show? You could as well consider ##S_n=1+2+\ldots+n## and observe that ##S_{n+1}\geq S_{n}+1## for every ##n##, hence
$$
S:=\displaystyle{\lim_{n \to \infty}S_n}\geq \lim_{n \to \infty}(S_1 + n)=1+\lim_{n \to \infty}n = \infty .
$$

Things get interesting if you allow negative summands. In that case, re-orderings could result in different sums.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu and Walid-yahya
  • #3
Here is an interesting note on series with alternating signs:
$$
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \dfrac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}=1-\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{3}-\dfrac{1}{4}\pm\ldots=\log 2
$$
which can be rearranged such that
$$
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \dfrac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}=1-\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{3}-\dfrac{1}{4}\pm\ldots=\log \sqrt{2}
$$
(My notation here is sloppy since it doesn't show the rearrangement. It is only to emphasize that rearrangements aren't automatically allowed. The reference is precise at this point.)

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/insig...rom-zeno-to-quantum-theory/#Domains-of-Series
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes phinds, Walid-yahya and jedishrfu
  • #4
Well, you have a sequence that is clearly not Cauchy; that itself should do it as proof that it doesn't converge.
 
  • Like
Likes Walid-yahya
  • #5
Great note dear It is clear that you have realized that the sum will reach infinity, and I place in your hands these papers for a new formula for this series.
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_٢٣٣٢٤٨_490.jpg
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_٢٣٣٢٣٧_645.jpg
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_٢٣٣٢٢٢_972.jpg
IMG_٢٠٢٤٠٦٢٧_٢٣٣٢١١_791.jpg
 
  • #6
You can play with rearrangements of the natural numbers as often as you like, but this is nothing we could discuss here. Furthermore, please use ##\LaTeX## (https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/) instead of uploading pictures.

Your last sentence is nonsense and suggests an assessment as a personal speculation which we do not discuss here. It is the third shortest way to leave our community. The theory of cardinalities is not trivial and the term "wave" in your post is nonsense, particularly on a website dedicated to physics.

This thread is closed now.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
737
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
907
Replies
1
Views
966
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
795
Replies
1
Views
868
Replies
3
Views
838
Replies
1
Views
685
  • General Math
Replies
31
Views
2K
Back
Top