-2

I am looking for a way to assign a value to an infinite divergent series, but so far I have failed to introduce my series in a more "Riemann-zeta"-lish way.

The series is:

$\sum_{n=0}^{∞}(10^n)$ = 1 + 10 + 100 + 1000 + ...

I am not applying the Term Test, since this series is obviously divergent.

I wouldn't bother myself with this problem, but take the series as infinity, however this nasty little Riemman-zeta function gives me anxiety, about what the actual result of this series is.

As it is well known,

10 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1,

100 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

and so on, so we can break down every term of the series like this and "feed" it within the series. But if we feed it that way, the result will be $\zeta(0)=-\frac{1}{2}$ and this I guess is not correct, since the same approach for

$\zeta(-1)=\sum_{n=0}^{∞} \frac{1}{n^{-1}} = \frac{1}{1^{-1}} + \frac{1}{2^{-1}} + \frac{1}{3^{-1}} + ... = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = 1 + (1 + 1) + (1 + 1 + 1) + ... = -\frac{1}{12}$

will lead us to the idea, that $\zeta(-1)=\zeta(0)$.

I am not far from the conclusion, that the main algebraic motives like associativity, distributivity and commutativity worth nothing here, as we deal with infinities.

The deeper I go to the problem, the more I am likely to drown in it, when I read about the other Zeta functions, the Cesaro summation, Abel summation, Ramanujan summation, Power series and who knows how many more nearly related to this problem approaches.

Things get even more dim as I read the previously raised similar questions

Is it possible to assign a value to the sum of primes?

Why does $1+2+3+\cdots = -\frac{1}{12}$?

and it seems to me, that there is too much unsolved Philosophy within the Math community, about what happens, when we obtain a value, that sort of equals "out of nowhere" to a divergent series.

I am like pretty sure this series has some weird unsolicited, non-integer, small negative value, but who knows what this value is like?

Can somebody help me out in here?

$\sum_{n=0}^{∞}(10^n)$ = ?

Thanks in advance!

  • Maybe try reading Hardy's book, Divergent Series for a start. It usually fails when you try to do more advanced things (like your question) when you do not already know the basics (like Hardy's book). – GEdgar Mar 03 '20 at 19:09
  • We run into serious trouble with assigning such values. One of the issues is how we can justify the specific way to assign a value. Other methods will probably lead to other values. Which one shall we choose then ? – Peter Mar 03 '20 at 19:12
  • This might give you some insight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem – Ty Jensen Mar 03 '20 at 19:15
  • 1
    "I am like pretty sure this series has some weird unsolicited, non-integer, small negative value" Why? As you noted yourself, the series diverges -- it has no value. Any technique by which we choose to assign a value to such a series (e.g., by "extending" the behavior/properties of the series over the values where it does converge to those where it does, and thereby creating a new, distinct function) is essentially arbitrary. I myself assign a value of $2.3$ to this series, since its $\LaTeX$ rendering on this page is approximately $2.3$ centimeter wide. – Brian61354270 Mar 03 '20 at 19:26
  • Thank you, guys, I will consider your answers. @GEdgar I just have downloaded the book. – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 19:48
  • @Ty Jensen Already read this, but I don't find myself better in this matter, unfortunately. – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 19:50
  • @Peter — the one that leads us to actual and accurate calculations in the real world, like the case with the Casimir force for example. – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 20:10

2 Answers2

-1

This is an often-confusing bit of abuse of language.

Something like Cesaro "summation" isn't really (when we dive into the formalism) a way of taking the sum of a divergent series. Rather, it should be thought of as a partial function $\mathfrak{C}$ from the set $\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}$ of all infinite sequences of real numbers to $\mathbb{R}$ satisfying certain properties, among them the following:

Whenver $(a_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence such that $\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}a_n$ is defined (in the usual sense) we have $\mathfrak{C}((a_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}})=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}a_n$.

That is, our "summation method" extends classical summation. It shouldn't be thought of as actually taking the sum of a divergent series, but rather assigning a number to it in a certain way which we hope is interesting and valuable (and in particular is compatible with the usual notion of summation).

We use sloppy terminology because $(i)$ it's more convenient and $(ii)$ with a little experience no confusion results, but what's actually going on isn't mysterious at all; there's no philosophical import here.

In particular, it is not the case in general that $$\zeta(z)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}{1\over n^z};$$ rather, the $\zeta$ function is a particular analytic function which agrees with $\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}{1\over n^z}$ when the latter is defined (that is, when $Re(z)>1$) but "does its own thing" elsewhere.


To get a sense of how the more precise language above works, consider the following:

There is no $\mathfrak{D}:\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ which is defined on all of $\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{N}$, extends the usual notion of summation, and satisfies the associativity laws $$\mathfrak{D}((a_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}})=\mathfrak{D}(a_0+a_1, a_2+a_3, a_4+a_5, ...)$$ and $$\mathfrak{D}((a_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}})=\mathfrak{D}(a_0, a_1+a_2, a_3+a_4, ...).$$

HINT: consider the Grandi series.

Noah Schweber
  • 245,398
  • Thank you for your positive attitude towards my question, as this was not always the case. I have read this, but I can't relate it to my problem. I can't also really believe, that there are no pragmatic reasons to insist, for example, that "$1^3+2^3+3^3+4^3+...=-\frac{1}{120}$" is truly a valid mathematical operation, since this actually calculates the Casimir force. I can't see how this is simply an abstract assumption of values to divergent series, if it seems to work in the real world in this case. – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 20:08
  • @ecclesiastes "Abstract" doesn't mean "arbitrary." As I said in my answer, we want our map to have various nice properties which are far from arbitrary. Meanwhile, the abstract formulation is simply to guarantee that everything is meaningful; it doesn't supplant the possibility of a "concrete" interpretation later on. All I'm insisting on in the above is that it's not really the sum we're taking, but something more general than that; and the language of abstract functions is very useful in stepping back and checking that we're not saying nonsense. – Noah Schweber Mar 03 '20 at 20:13
  • @ecclesiastes That said, if you don't find this relevant I'll delete it. – Noah Schweber Mar 03 '20 at 20:17
  • Noah Schweber — Please don't delete it and pardon me If I somehow offended you. Probably I just cannot grasp the meaning of it. The downvote is not mine, I cannot vote as I am low privileged, plus I wouldn't even if I had the privilege, because this is simply not my way to treat people, who try to help out for my problems' solution. – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 20:19
  • @ecclesiastes I think your question is a bit unclear. Maybe you're asking why the various "extended summation" methods we've focused on actually happen to be useful in "real life" (I originally read your question as asking what these things are, not why they're useful)? – Noah Schweber Mar 03 '20 at 20:25
  • Well, I am solving a physical problem, that leads me to this infinite power series of 10. The behavior of my system is quite convergent and it settles down in time, but the equations show this weird divergent behavior. There are two possibilities — I am mistaken somewhere in my calculations (which isn't unlikely), or maybe this infinite power series of 10 has actual physical non-infinite meaning, like the case with the Casimir force where the term $\zeta(-3)$ appears. This is why I would like to know, if there is a solution for this series and what it is — a value, infinity, NaN, else? – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 20:40
  • @ecclesiastes Then I think you should focus your question on that - at present it has a lot of sidetracking. "Such-and-such series has cropped up in a physics context; assuming I haven't made a mistake setting it up, is there some reasonable way to attach a value to it?" – Noah Schweber Mar 03 '20 at 20:49
  • Ok, thank you. I will probably ask this, formulating my question better. Thanks for your help. – ecclesiastes Mar 03 '20 at 21:08
-1

Very easy.

$$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}10^n=\frac{9\ 10^{\delta (0)-\frac{1}{2}}}{\log ^2(10)}-\frac{1}{9}$$

If you are interested in the regularized value, it is

$$\operatorname{reg}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}10^n=\frac{1}{\log (10)}-\frac{1}{9}$$

Anixx
  • 9,119