Limit of geometric series sum when $r = 1$Testing if a geometric series converges by taking limit to infinityElementary converge and divergeVertical asymptote of $frac 3x^2 - 18x - 816x^2 - 54$Intuition for gradient when you only have one variable?Find the limit $limlimits_n to inftyfrac2^-n^2sumlimits_k=n+1^infty 2^-k^2$Sum of a finite geometric seriesShowing that the sum of a complex power series is equal to an indicator variableWhy this limit exists (Khan Academy)Sum of Geometric Series FormulaCan we say a function is “unbounded” when we mean it''s tending to infinity?
Why we can't differentiate a polynomial equation as many times as we wish?
How must one send away the mother bird?
Freedom of speech and where it applies
Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?
How to decide convergence of Integrals
How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?
Could the E-bike drivetrain wear down till needing replacement after 400 km?
About a little hole in Z'ha'dum
We have a love-hate relationship
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?
Two-sided logarithm inequality
Have I saved too much for retirement so far?
How does the reference system of the Majjhima Nikaya work?
Drawing ramified coverings with tikz
Greco-Roman egalitarianism
Is it improper etiquette to ask your opponent what his/her rating is before the game?
Do varchar(max), nvarchar(max) and varbinary(max) columns affect select queries?
Visiting the UK as unmarried couple
Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?
What linear sensor for a keyboard?
Database accidentally deleted with a bash script
Divine apple island
How do I implement a file system driver driver in Linux?
Limit of geometric series sum when $r = 1$
Testing if a geometric series converges by taking limit to infinityElementary converge and divergeVertical asymptote of $frac 3x^2 - 18x - 816x^2 - 54$Intuition for gradient when you only have one variable?Find the limit $limlimits_n to inftyfrac2^-n^2sumlimits_k=n+1^infty 2^-k^2$Sum of a finite geometric seriesShowing that the sum of a complex power series is equal to an indicator variableWhy this limit exists (Khan Academy)Sum of Geometric Series FormulaCan we say a function is “unbounded” when we mean it''s tending to infinity?
$begingroup$
I'm currently learning the prove of sum of geometric series on Khan Academy.
I understand the behaviour of the function when $|r| > 1$, when $|r| < 1$, when $r = 0$ and when $r = -1$, but I am a bit confused by its behaviour when $r = 1$.
The narrator said that when $r = 1$, the limit function is undefined because the denominator of the limit function would be $0$, and the behaviour of the limit function is UNDEFINED, which I do understand.
My confusion arises when I tried to substitute $r = 1$ into the original function for sum of geometric series,
if $r = 1$, then every term would equal to a, and the sum of the geometric series would approach infinity, so its behaviour is DEFINED.
So when $r = 1$, behaviour of sum function is DEFINED, but behaviour of limit function is UNDEFINED, but sum function also equal to limit function?!
This is causing me so much confusion.
calculus sequences-and-series limits summation
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm currently learning the prove of sum of geometric series on Khan Academy.
I understand the behaviour of the function when $|r| > 1$, when $|r| < 1$, when $r = 0$ and when $r = -1$, but I am a bit confused by its behaviour when $r = 1$.
The narrator said that when $r = 1$, the limit function is undefined because the denominator of the limit function would be $0$, and the behaviour of the limit function is UNDEFINED, which I do understand.
My confusion arises when I tried to substitute $r = 1$ into the original function for sum of geometric series,
if $r = 1$, then every term would equal to a, and the sum of the geometric series would approach infinity, so its behaviour is DEFINED.
So when $r = 1$, behaviour of sum function is DEFINED, but behaviour of limit function is UNDEFINED, but sum function also equal to limit function?!
This is causing me so much confusion.
calculus sequences-and-series limits summation
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"proof" ≠ "prove".
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue both the series and the rational function give the value $infty$ at $r=1$. Compactification makes working with limits of rational functions so much cleaner.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen The function $1/1-x$ has no unique value at $1,$ even after compactifying $mathbf R.$ At best, it has both $+infty$ and $-infty$ as candidate values.
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Allawonder we don't compactify to two infinities - we compactify to a single infinity. The one point compactification of $mathbb R$
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen Oh, I did not realise that you meant the analogue of the stereo map. I thought you meant extending the reals to include both $+$ and $-infty.$
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I'm currently learning the prove of sum of geometric series on Khan Academy.
I understand the behaviour of the function when $|r| > 1$, when $|r| < 1$, when $r = 0$ and when $r = -1$, but I am a bit confused by its behaviour when $r = 1$.
The narrator said that when $r = 1$, the limit function is undefined because the denominator of the limit function would be $0$, and the behaviour of the limit function is UNDEFINED, which I do understand.
My confusion arises when I tried to substitute $r = 1$ into the original function for sum of geometric series,
if $r = 1$, then every term would equal to a, and the sum of the geometric series would approach infinity, so its behaviour is DEFINED.
So when $r = 1$, behaviour of sum function is DEFINED, but behaviour of limit function is UNDEFINED, but sum function also equal to limit function?!
This is causing me so much confusion.
calculus sequences-and-series limits summation
$endgroup$
I'm currently learning the prove of sum of geometric series on Khan Academy.
I understand the behaviour of the function when $|r| > 1$, when $|r| < 1$, when $r = 0$ and when $r = -1$, but I am a bit confused by its behaviour when $r = 1$.
The narrator said that when $r = 1$, the limit function is undefined because the denominator of the limit function would be $0$, and the behaviour of the limit function is UNDEFINED, which I do understand.
My confusion arises when I tried to substitute $r = 1$ into the original function for sum of geometric series,
if $r = 1$, then every term would equal to a, and the sum of the geometric series would approach infinity, so its behaviour is DEFINED.
So when $r = 1$, behaviour of sum function is DEFINED, but behaviour of limit function is UNDEFINED, but sum function also equal to limit function?!
This is causing me so much confusion.
calculus sequences-and-series limits summation
calculus sequences-and-series limits summation
edited yesterday
Benjamin
625419
625419
asked yesterday
ThorThor
26117
26117
$begingroup$
"proof" ≠ "prove".
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue both the series and the rational function give the value $infty$ at $r=1$. Compactification makes working with limits of rational functions so much cleaner.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen The function $1/1-x$ has no unique value at $1,$ even after compactifying $mathbf R.$ At best, it has both $+infty$ and $-infty$ as candidate values.
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Allawonder we don't compactify to two infinities - we compactify to a single infinity. The one point compactification of $mathbb R$
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen Oh, I did not realise that you meant the analogue of the stereo map. I thought you meant extending the reals to include both $+$ and $-infty.$
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
"proof" ≠ "prove".
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue both the series and the rational function give the value $infty$ at $r=1$. Compactification makes working with limits of rational functions so much cleaner.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen The function $1/1-x$ has no unique value at $1,$ even after compactifying $mathbf R.$ At best, it has both $+infty$ and $-infty$ as candidate values.
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Allawonder we don't compactify to two infinities - we compactify to a single infinity. The one point compactification of $mathbb R$
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen Oh, I did not realise that you meant the analogue of the stereo map. I thought you meant extending the reals to include both $+$ and $-infty.$
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
"proof" ≠ "prove".
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
"proof" ≠ "prove".
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue both the series and the rational function give the value $infty$ at $r=1$. Compactification makes working with limits of rational functions so much cleaner.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue both the series and the rational function give the value $infty$ at $r=1$. Compactification makes working with limits of rational functions so much cleaner.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen The function $1/1-x$ has no unique value at $1,$ even after compactifying $mathbf R.$ At best, it has both $+infty$ and $-infty$ as candidate values.
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen The function $1/1-x$ has no unique value at $1,$ even after compactifying $mathbf R.$ At best, it has both $+infty$ and $-infty$ as candidate values.
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Allawonder we don't compactify to two infinities - we compactify to a single infinity. The one point compactification of $mathbb R$
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Allawonder we don't compactify to two infinities - we compactify to a single infinity. The one point compactification of $mathbb R$
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen Oh, I did not realise that you meant the analogue of the stereo map. I thought you meant extending the reals to include both $+$ and $-infty.$
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen Oh, I did not realise that you meant the analogue of the stereo map. I thought you meant extending the reals to include both $+$ and $-infty.$
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
|
show 2 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In order to understand why $r=1$ is not allowed you have to look at the proof of the geometric series (I will neglect the constant $a$). We start with
$$S_n = 1 + r+ r^2+ ... + r^n$$
$$rS_n = r + r^2 + r^3 +... + r^n+1$$
Then we subtract both equations.
$$S_n ( 1-r) = 1 - r^n+1$$
Solving for $S_n$ requires that $rneq 1$ or we would dived by $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is that the equality$$sum_k=0^nar^n=fraca-ar^n+11-r$$only holds when $rneq1$. When $r=1$, it doesn't make sense. So, in order to study the behaviour of the series $displaystylesum_k=0^nar^n$ when $r=1$, we have to take another apprach. And that approach is:$$sum_k=0^na1^n=sum_k=0^na=(n+1)a.$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a matter of terminology. You are right to say that "its behaviour is DEFINED", but this is an informal statement, meaning that we understand that the series diverges to infinity.
But when the limit of a series cannot be expressed by a real number, we say that it is undefined. You must accept this convention.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The best way is to look at an actual geometric series with ratio of 1, such as
$2+2+2+2+2+2+2...$
Here, because each term is simply the previous term multiplied by 1, the series diverges, no limit can be found for obvious reasons.
Take the common ratio of $-1$
$(1)+(-1)+(1)+(-1)+(1)...$
Here, the value bounces between 0 and 1, so no limit can be found.
Note: A limit ONLY occurs if the partial sum, i.e. the sum up to n terms, tends to some number as n gets larger and larger.
As this is not the case if $|r|=1$, the function simply has no limit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The only problem is that you are considering that infinite is a number. If something is infinite, then it's undefined. So, when r = 1, it's not possible to calcule its sum, because the generated infinite value it's not defined.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3159219%2flimit-of-geometric-series-sum-when-r-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
In order to understand why $r=1$ is not allowed you have to look at the proof of the geometric series (I will neglect the constant $a$). We start with
$$S_n = 1 + r+ r^2+ ... + r^n$$
$$rS_n = r + r^2 + r^3 +... + r^n+1$$
Then we subtract both equations.
$$S_n ( 1-r) = 1 - r^n+1$$
Solving for $S_n$ requires that $rneq 1$ or we would dived by $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In order to understand why $r=1$ is not allowed you have to look at the proof of the geometric series (I will neglect the constant $a$). We start with
$$S_n = 1 + r+ r^2+ ... + r^n$$
$$rS_n = r + r^2 + r^3 +... + r^n+1$$
Then we subtract both equations.
$$S_n ( 1-r) = 1 - r^n+1$$
Solving for $S_n$ requires that $rneq 1$ or we would dived by $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In order to understand why $r=1$ is not allowed you have to look at the proof of the geometric series (I will neglect the constant $a$). We start with
$$S_n = 1 + r+ r^2+ ... + r^n$$
$$rS_n = r + r^2 + r^3 +... + r^n+1$$
Then we subtract both equations.
$$S_n ( 1-r) = 1 - r^n+1$$
Solving for $S_n$ requires that $rneq 1$ or we would dived by $0$.
$endgroup$
In order to understand why $r=1$ is not allowed you have to look at the proof of the geometric series (I will neglect the constant $a$). We start with
$$S_n = 1 + r+ r^2+ ... + r^n$$
$$rS_n = r + r^2 + r^3 +... + r^n+1$$
Then we subtract both equations.
$$S_n ( 1-r) = 1 - r^n+1$$
Solving for $S_n$ requires that $rneq 1$ or we would dived by $0$.
answered yesterday
MachineLearnerMachineLearner
1,317111
1,317111
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
$begingroup$
+1 for showing why the result fails for $r=1$.
$endgroup$
– Paramanand Singh
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is that the equality$$sum_k=0^nar^n=fraca-ar^n+11-r$$only holds when $rneq1$. When $r=1$, it doesn't make sense. So, in order to study the behaviour of the series $displaystylesum_k=0^nar^n$ when $r=1$, we have to take another apprach. And that approach is:$$sum_k=0^na1^n=sum_k=0^na=(n+1)a.$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is that the equality$$sum_k=0^nar^n=fraca-ar^n+11-r$$only holds when $rneq1$. When $r=1$, it doesn't make sense. So, in order to study the behaviour of the series $displaystylesum_k=0^nar^n$ when $r=1$, we have to take another apprach. And that approach is:$$sum_k=0^na1^n=sum_k=0^na=(n+1)a.$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What happens is that the equality$$sum_k=0^nar^n=fraca-ar^n+11-r$$only holds when $rneq1$. When $r=1$, it doesn't make sense. So, in order to study the behaviour of the series $displaystylesum_k=0^nar^n$ when $r=1$, we have to take another apprach. And that approach is:$$sum_k=0^na1^n=sum_k=0^na=(n+1)a.$$
$endgroup$
What happens is that the equality$$sum_k=0^nar^n=fraca-ar^n+11-r$$only holds when $rneq1$. When $r=1$, it doesn't make sense. So, in order to study the behaviour of the series $displaystylesum_k=0^nar^n$ when $r=1$, we have to take another apprach. And that approach is:$$sum_k=0^na1^n=sum_k=0^na=(n+1)a.$$
answered yesterday
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
170k23132238
170k23132238
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
$begingroup$
hi Jose, thanks for helping out. Do you mind if I ask, does the equality hold for r = -1? My guess is that it doesn't, but just want to confirm with you.
$endgroup$
– Thor
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
$begingroup$
My first equality holds for every $rneq1$.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a matter of terminology. You are right to say that "its behaviour is DEFINED", but this is an informal statement, meaning that we understand that the series diverges to infinity.
But when the limit of a series cannot be expressed by a real number, we say that it is undefined. You must accept this convention.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a matter of terminology. You are right to say that "its behaviour is DEFINED", but this is an informal statement, meaning that we understand that the series diverges to infinity.
But when the limit of a series cannot be expressed by a real number, we say that it is undefined. You must accept this convention.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is a matter of terminology. You are right to say that "its behaviour is DEFINED", but this is an informal statement, meaning that we understand that the series diverges to infinity.
But when the limit of a series cannot be expressed by a real number, we say that it is undefined. You must accept this convention.
$endgroup$
It is a matter of terminology. You are right to say that "its behaviour is DEFINED", but this is an informal statement, meaning that we understand that the series diverges to infinity.
But when the limit of a series cannot be expressed by a real number, we say that it is undefined. You must accept this convention.
answered yesterday
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
131k676229
131k676229
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The best way is to look at an actual geometric series with ratio of 1, such as
$2+2+2+2+2+2+2...$
Here, because each term is simply the previous term multiplied by 1, the series diverges, no limit can be found for obvious reasons.
Take the common ratio of $-1$
$(1)+(-1)+(1)+(-1)+(1)...$
Here, the value bounces between 0 and 1, so no limit can be found.
Note: A limit ONLY occurs if the partial sum, i.e. the sum up to n terms, tends to some number as n gets larger and larger.
As this is not the case if $|r|=1$, the function simply has no limit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The best way is to look at an actual geometric series with ratio of 1, such as
$2+2+2+2+2+2+2...$
Here, because each term is simply the previous term multiplied by 1, the series diverges, no limit can be found for obvious reasons.
Take the common ratio of $-1$
$(1)+(-1)+(1)+(-1)+(1)...$
Here, the value bounces between 0 and 1, so no limit can be found.
Note: A limit ONLY occurs if the partial sum, i.e. the sum up to n terms, tends to some number as n gets larger and larger.
As this is not the case if $|r|=1$, the function simply has no limit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The best way is to look at an actual geometric series with ratio of 1, such as
$2+2+2+2+2+2+2...$
Here, because each term is simply the previous term multiplied by 1, the series diverges, no limit can be found for obvious reasons.
Take the common ratio of $-1$
$(1)+(-1)+(1)+(-1)+(1)...$
Here, the value bounces between 0 and 1, so no limit can be found.
Note: A limit ONLY occurs if the partial sum, i.e. the sum up to n terms, tends to some number as n gets larger and larger.
As this is not the case if $|r|=1$, the function simply has no limit.
New contributor
$endgroup$
The best way is to look at an actual geometric series with ratio of 1, such as
$2+2+2+2+2+2+2...$
Here, because each term is simply the previous term multiplied by 1, the series diverges, no limit can be found for obvious reasons.
Take the common ratio of $-1$
$(1)+(-1)+(1)+(-1)+(1)...$
Here, the value bounces between 0 and 1, so no limit can be found.
Note: A limit ONLY occurs if the partial sum, i.e. the sum up to n terms, tends to some number as n gets larger and larger.
As this is not the case if $|r|=1$, the function simply has no limit.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
amanaman
926
926
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The only problem is that you are considering that infinite is a number. If something is infinite, then it's undefined. So, when r = 1, it's not possible to calcule its sum, because the generated infinite value it's not defined.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The only problem is that you are considering that infinite is a number. If something is infinite, then it's undefined. So, when r = 1, it's not possible to calcule its sum, because the generated infinite value it's not defined.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The only problem is that you are considering that infinite is a number. If something is infinite, then it's undefined. So, when r = 1, it's not possible to calcule its sum, because the generated infinite value it's not defined.
$endgroup$
The only problem is that you are considering that infinite is a number. If something is infinite, then it's undefined. So, when r = 1, it's not possible to calcule its sum, because the generated infinite value it's not defined.
answered yesterday
shewlongshewlong
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3159219%2flimit-of-geometric-series-sum-when-r-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
"proof" ≠ "prove".
$endgroup$
– user21820
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue both the series and the rational function give the value $infty$ at $r=1$. Compactification makes working with limits of rational functions so much cleaner.
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen The function $1/1-x$ has no unique value at $1,$ even after compactifying $mathbf R.$ At best, it has both $+infty$ and $-infty$ as candidate values.
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Allawonder we don't compactify to two infinities - we compactify to a single infinity. The one point compactification of $mathbb R$
$endgroup$
– Brevan Ellefsen
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BrevanEllefsen Oh, I did not realise that you meant the analogue of the stereo map. I thought you meant extending the reals to include both $+$ and $-infty.$
$endgroup$
– Allawonder
yesterday