Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Analysis with series 1/2^2+1/3^2
Posted:
Aug 9, 2012 12:11 PM


On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 11:37:16 0500, "dilettante" <no@nonono.no> wrote:
> >"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message >news:9p3528hcb1iaqmifjhlkcej9aij5mgagl6@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:23:02 0700 (PDT), Mina <mina_world@hanmail.net> >> wrote: >> >>>Hello teacher~ >>> >>>{(1/2^2) + (1/3^2) + (1/4^2) + ...} >>>+ {(1/2^3) + (1/3^3) + (1/4^3) + ...} >>>+ {(1/2^4) + (1/3^4) + (1/4^4) + ...} >>>+ ... >>> >>> >>>I have a solution.(ambiguous) >>> >>>Namely, >>> >>>{(1/2^2) + (1/3^2) + (1/4^2) + ...} >>>+ {(1/2^3) + (1/3^3) + (1/4^3) + ...} >>>+ {(1/2^4) + (1/3^4) + (1/4^4) + ...} >>>+ ... >>> >>>= >>> >>>(1/2^2 + 1/2^3 + 1/2^4 + ...) >>>+ (1/3^2 + 1/3^3 + 1/3^4 + ...) >>>+ (1/4^2 + 1/4^3 + 1/4^4 + ...) >>> >>>(this associative law ? Really possible?) >> >> It's not just the associative law. But this manipulation >> is ok. The reason it's ok is because you're dealing with >> a sum of _positive_ terms; if you have a sum of positive >> terms any sort of regrouping or reordering is ok. > >Isn't it Fubini's theorem that justifies this, since we are not just >rearranging the terms of a single series, but changing the order of a double >summation?
Yes, it follows from Fubini's theorem. Or more precisely Tonelli's theorem, which basically says "Fubini always works for positive functions".
But the argument I had in mind is much more general, allowing various manipulations that might not be covered by Tonelli. Note I said "regrouping or reordering"...
Hmm. If S is any set, and a : S > [0,infinty], let's define
int_S a = sup_F sum_{j in F} a(j),
where the sup runs over all finite sets F contained in S (so sum_S a is just the integral of a with respect to counting measure). And say N = {1,2,3...}.
Lemma 1. If a : N > [0,infinity] then
sum_N a = sum_{j=1}^infinifty a(j).
Proof. Say s_n = sum_{j=1}^n a(j). By definition of sum_N a it follows that
s_n <= sum_N a
for all n, hence
sum_{j=1}^infinity a(j) <= sum_N a.
Conversely, if F is a finite subset of N then there exists A so that
s_n >= sum_F a (n > A),
and hence sum_{j=1}^infinity a(j) >= sum_N a. QED.
So order is irrelevant to sums of positive terms, since it's clear that if phi is a permutation of S and a is a positive function on S then
sum_S a = sum_S a o phi.
Similarly
Lemma 2. If (S_j)_{j in J} is any partition of S and a is a positive function on S then
sum_S a = sum_j {sum_S_j a}.
Proof: Exercise; analogous to the previous. QED.
Those two lemmas suffice to show that
sum_j sum_k a(j,k) = sum_k sum_j a(j,k)
if a(j,k) >= 0.
My point in writing out the above is to point out that the same argument applies to various other sorts of "regrouping", for example
sum_j sum_k a(j,k) = sum_n sum_j=1^{n1} a(j, nj).
I'm not going to try to define "any sort of regrouping or reordering"  the same argument applies to any sort of regrouping or reordering, where the definition is "something where the same argument applies"... As long as all the terms are positive and each term appears exactly once there's no problem.
> >> >>> >>>= >>> >>>(1/2^2)/{1(1/2)} >>>+ (1/3^2)/{1(1/3)} >>>+ (1/4^2)/{1(1/4)} >>>+... >>> >>>= (1/2) + (1/3).(1/2) + (1/4).(1/3) + ... >>> >>>= (1/2) + {(1/2)(1/3)} + {(1/3)(1/4)} + ... >>> >>>= 1 >>> >>> >>>Hm... how do you think about it ? >>



