2

Let $s=1+r+r^2+r^3+\ldots$

Then $rs=r+r^2+r^3+\ldots$

Then $s-rs=1$, so $s(1-r)=1$, and thus $s=\dfrac{1}{1-r}$

This is a taken from Wikipedia's article on geometric series. I think there is a problem with this. We are assuming that the sum is $s$ a number and then doing operations on it. Well what if $s$ is not a number, infinity perhaps? We have not assumed or proved convergence of the geometric series. Thus I think there is a hole in this proof. Am I right or wrong?

If there is that gap we must prove the convergence. I do not see any method using limits or anything else. Can you help me?

Sawarnik
  • 7,284
  • 7
  • 33
  • 74
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression#Infinite_geometric_series – lab bhattacharjee Jan 12 '14 at 15:16
  • This proof as it is seems somewhat imprecise indeed. I think the right way to go would be to apply this same procedure to the finite case, set up the convergence conditions and then take the limit of that to get the infinite convergent GP sum formula. – Felipe Jacob Jan 12 '14 at 15:19

4 Answers4

6

Wikipedia starts the explanation proving $$s = 1 + r + ...+r^{n-1} = \frac{1-r^n}{1-r}$$. This is still a number, since the sum is finite. Now take the limit $n$ to $\infty$ and you have your solution whenever $|r|<1$. The next part was just a review of what was done before.

EDIT: Now to prove that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} r^n=0$ if $|r|<1$:

One general idea would be that whenever $|r|<1$, the infinite sequence $$r,r^2,r^3,...,r^n,...$$ is monotonically decreasing and bounded by $0$. Therefore, it has a limit.

To prove that this limit is $0$ is the same as to prove that for every real $\epsilon>0$, there is an $n_o\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $|r^{n_o}|<ϵ$. This is equivalent to saying $$|r^{n_o}|<ϵ$$

Now let's make $\frac{1}{r}=r_{inv}$. Therefore $|r_{inv}|>1$, and the infinite sequence $$r_{inv},r_{inv}^2,...,r_{inv}^n,...$$ is monotonically increasing and unbounded. This is the same as saying that for every $M\in\mathbb{R}$, there is an $n_1 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $|r_{inv}^{n_1}|>M$. But this applies for every real M, so we pick one such that $M>\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, giving $$|r_{inv}^{n_1}|>M>\frac{1}{\epsilon}$$ Inverting the last equation, we get $$|r^{n_1}|<ϵ$$

2

You're correct. The assumption in this argument is that the sum of the series exists, i.e., that the partial sums form a convergent sequence. You can, however, read the argument as follows:

"If the sum $s$ exists and is finite, then the following algebraic steps show that it must in fact be $\dfrac{1}{1-r}$. When $|r| > 1$, it's clear that the sum diverges. All that remains is to show that for $|r| < 1$, the series converges. "

Then there's some work to do. One possibility is to show that for $|r| < 1$, the Cauchy property holds, in which case the series converges.

John Hughes
  • 93,729
2

Of course convergence must be proven, and it is, for $|x|<1$.

There is a closed formula for finite geometric series: $$\sum_{k=0}^naq^k=\frac{a(q^n-1)}{q-1}$$ Limiting n to infinity gives the formula for infinite sum.

EDIT:

It remains to show that for any $q$ for which $|q|<1$, $\lim_{n\to\infty}q^n=0$

Put $r=\frac1q$. Then $|r|>1$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}r^n=\infty$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty}q^n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac1{r^n}=\frac{1}{\infty}=0$

It is not exactly formal and the case $q<0$ (In this case the absolute value need to be considered) but it is a form for proof.

Here a proof that $\lim_{n \to \infty} n x^{n} = 0$, I think it imlies.

LeeNeverGup
  • 2,671
  • 1
    We know that $q^n$ has decreasing absolute value, and thus the sequence has a non-negative infimum. If it is not $0$, we can get arbitrarily close to the infimum and after one more step go below the infimum, which is a contradiction. Therefore the infimum and hence the sequence limit is $0$. – user21820 Jan 23 '14 at 01:53
0

I think convergence of the geometric series is required (i.e., $|r|<1$) when we do operations on it. Otherwise we may get unpleasant case such as $\infty-\infty$.

Xucheng Zhang
  • 766
  • 3
  • 8