4

Grandi's series : $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n$$ I heard many many times about Grandi's series and also read about it in this site . In some sources , It's equal to $\frac{1}{2}$ and in the other it's undefined! I'm confused ! I want to know what is the correct answer and why it's true ? (Please answer in simple words)

Please Help!

S.H.W
  • 4,379
  • For a series $\sum a_n$, if $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}a_n\neq 0$ then the series $\sum a_n$ diverges. – guest Dec 15 '16 at 08:33
  • @Arthur See this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi's_series – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 08:39
  • By all of the standard definitions of summation and divergence Grandi's series diverges. However, it is possible to define summation in such a way (e.g. Cesaro summation) such that it converges to 1/2 – user317176 Dec 15 '16 at 08:42
  • The answer to your question ist: Analytical continuation. With this continuation you can have functions where your series is included and the result is $1/2$. Without any continuation it's of course divergent. – user90369 Dec 15 '16 at 09:21
  • Therefore , if we have $n \in \mathbb{R}$ , Answer will be $\frac{1}{2}$ ! – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 09:30

5 Answers5

6

There are many ways to assign a finite number to infinite series. Taking their actual sum (defined by taking the limit of the partial sums) is one, but there are other (much more theoretical ways) than just sums. Many of them give answers to series that are not actually convergent. The best of them agree with the sums if the series is convergent and give finite answers on some series that are not convergent. See for instance Cesaro summation and Abel summation.

Most of the methods that agree with sums on convergent series but give a finite answer to $\sum_{n = 0}^\infty (-1)^n$ do indeed give the answer $\frac12$. But those are not sums in the strict sense.

By the way, if you ever happen to come across the statement $\sum_{n = 1}^\infty n = -\frac1{12}$, my answer will be the same, and I've given it several times on that exact question on this site.

Arthur
  • 199,419
2

Correctness of answer depends on meaning the sum of an infinite series. According to wiki, nowadays in math the sum of an infinite series is the limit of of the sequence of its partial sums. In this case we see that Grandi's series is divergent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi%27s_series

2

From Wikipedia:

We know the sum of an infinite series is defined to be the limit of the sequence of its partial sums, if it exists. The sequence of partial sums of Grandi's series is $1, 0, 1, 0, ...$, which clearly does not approach any number (although it does have two accumulation points at $0$ and $1$). Therefore, Grandi's series is divergent.


Cesaro's method of summing up divergent series: The basic idea is similar to Leibniz's probabilistic approach: essentially, the Cesàro sum of a series is the average of all of its partial sums. Formally one computes, for each $n$, the average $\sigma_{n}$ of the first $n$ partial sums, and takes the limit of these Cesàro means as $n$ goes to infinity.

For Grandi's series, the sequence of arithmetic means is $1, 1/2, 2/3, 2/4, 3/5, 3/6, 4/7, 4/8, …$ or, more suggestively, $(1/2+1/2), 1/2, (1/2+1/6), 1/2, (1/2+1/10), 1/2, (1/2+1/14), 1/2, …$ where $\sigma _{n}={\frac {1}{2}}$ for even $n$ and $\sigma _{n}={\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{2n}}$ for odd $n$.

This sequence of arithmetic means converges to $1/2$, so the Cesàro sum of $\sum a_{k}$ is $\frac{1}{2}$. Equivalently, one says that the Cesàro limit of the sequence $1, 0, 1, 0, …$ is $\frac{1}{2}$.

  • Actually, Grandi's series is not convergent, but there are many summation methods that respect these manipulations and that do assign a "sum" to Grandi's series. These give the value $\frac{1}{2}$. –  Dec 15 '16 at 08:45
  • This has actually nice interpretation in signal processing, where one wants to remove high frequency noise and focus on overall trend of the signal. In this case the oscillations between $0$ and $1$ can be viewed as a noise, and the averaging is indeed type of the filter. But do not let this intuition pollute mathematical definition, as Rohan mentioned by conventional definition this series diverge :) – Sil Dec 15 '16 at 08:48
  • @RohanTherefore , in fact we know that Grandi's series is diverge and doesn't have limit But we define new notion and method and assign a value for it . Am I right ? – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 08:50
  • Yes, you are right. –  Dec 15 '16 at 08:51
  • @Rohan If we write $S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1+ \dots $ and then conclude $1 - S = S$ is it related to Cesaro's method of summing up divergent series ? – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 09:11
  • But for getting $1-S = S$ , We don't use any particular summation. Can you explain usage of Cesaro's method to get this result ? – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 09:21
  • Sorry, it is not related. I didn't read it properly. Treating Grandi's series as a divergent geometric series we may use the same algebraic methods that evaluate convergent geometric series to obtain a third value: S = 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ..., so 1 − S = 1 − (1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ...) = 1 − 1 + 1 − 1 + ... = S, resulting in S = 1/2. The same conclusion results from calculating −S, subtracting the result from S, and solving 2S = 1. –  Dec 15 '16 at 09:27
  • But we can't assume it convergent geometric series . because $|q| \not \lt 1$ – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 09:38
  • A divergent geometric series has common ratio greater than or equal to 1. Anyway, respecting the Grandi's series these are summations to 0.5. –  Dec 15 '16 at 09:42
1

The series is divergent. It would converge if and only if there were some real number $l$ with the property that $l=\mathrm{lim}_{k\rightarrow\infty}\Sigma_{n=0}^{k} (-1)^{n}$. If that were the case then for every real number $\epsilon>0$, however small, we could find a non-negative integer $N$ with the property that $\vert\Sigma_{n=0}^{k} (-1)^{n}-l\vert<\epsilon$ for all $k$ such that $k\geq N$. In particular it would then follow that if $k_{1}$ and $k_{2}$ are any two non-negative integers such that $k_{1}, k_{2} \geq N$, we would have $\vert \Sigma_{n=0}^{k_{1}} (-1)^{n} - \Sigma_{n=0}^{k_{2}} (-1)^{n} \vert<2\epsilon$. But then consider the case where $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$. Then it would follow that for some sufficiently large non-negative integer $N$ we can never have two non-negative integers $k_{1}, k_{2}$ such that $k_{1}, k_{2} \geq N$ and $\vert \Sigma_{n=0}^{k_{1}} (-1)^{n} - \Sigma_{n=0}^{k_{2}} (-1)^{n} \vert =1$. But clearly it is always possible to find two non-negative integers $k_{1}, k_{2}$ which will make that happen no matter how large $N$ is. So we must conclude that the limit of the partial sums of the series does not exist and the series is not convergent. This means that according to standard usage the expression $\Sigma_{n=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{n}$ is not well-defined.

Rupert
  • 928
1

It's just a matter of definitions. If you define the symbol $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n$ as the limit of its partial sums (e.g. the limit of the sequence $(1), (1 -1), (1-1+1), (1-1+1-1), \cdots)$, which is the usual definition, then the sum is divergent. But if you define the symbol as $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n$ something else (such as Cesaro Summation definition), then you can get this symbol being equal to other values (including $\dfrac 12$)

Ovi
  • 23,737
  • You said "including $\frac{1}{2}$ " . Is there any value for it ? – S.H.W Dec 15 '16 at 09:04
  • 1
    @S.H.W Well it's just a matter of definitions. You can make a new definition of the sumbol $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n$ that would give you something else than $\dfrac 12$. You can even just define $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n$ to be equal to $-10$ if you wanted. The thing here is that the symbol $\sum_{n=0}^\infty (-1)^n$ doesn't HAVE to represent you adding up an infinite number of terms, it can represent whatever you define it to represent. But we usually make definitions that are useful and/or make sense. – Ovi Dec 15 '16 at 15:23
  • 1
    @S.H.W The interpretation of an "infinite sum" is probably best captured by the definition of taking the limit of partial sums. – Ovi Dec 15 '16 at 15:25