I guess that you cannot let \(S=1+2+4+8+16+\ldots \infty\) because the sum of the geometric progression does not converge (approaches infinity). Also, you cannot subtract equation \((2)\) with \((1)\) because both \(S\) and \(2S\) do not exist.

Got a reason. If S is infinity. Then 2*infinity is also infinity. This means there will be nothing like 2S for infinity.Also you can't apply operations like addition or subtraction etc to infinity. If you will say that assuming n terms where n tends to infinity and apply operations. Then the result will be something which is likely to be.

Before writing the statement "S is equal to.." you must prove the convergence of the series. If the series converges, then only it has a limiting value, which you may call S. If you assume that S exists before proving its existence, then anomalous results as the above may pop up. Here the series does not converge (rather it diverges) simply because its the sequence of its partial sums is not bounded.

It looks like to be on the same pattern as we derive formula for infinite sum of G.P. But there was |r| < 1. We can't use this pattern in such case where |x| > 1. Because the terms are increasing at a large rate and uncertainty of one last infinitely large term may result in false value.

@Atul Shivam
–
Well, i just want to say that infinity doesn't follow elementary operations. I need some time to give a proper explanation. I am very sorry that i couldn't explain it.

Uncertainty of one term may result in this false value. Because if you get to same approach by using sigma instead of value. You will get the desired result. Explain me if you know the exact reason.

Let us take an another geometric progression \(T_n= 1,\frac {1}{2},\frac {1}{4},\frac {1}{8},\frac {1}{16}......\) and let \(S\) be it's sum
I.e \(S= (1+\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{4}+\frac {1}{8}+\frac {1}{16}......)----(1)\) \((2S =2+1+\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{4}+\frac {1}{8}+\frac {1}{16}......)----(2) \)
Now
\(2S-2= (1+\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{4}+\frac {1}{8}+\frac {1}{16}......)\)
\(2S=4\) and hence \(S= 2\) which is absolutely correct as \(S\) has actual value of \(+2\). Why it seems to be correct and not the above one

sorry for my poor English I am not very much fluent \(:-) \)

That's what I said earlier your procedure is correct when S is finite but same thing is not applicable when S is infinite because the value of \(\displaystyle \infty - \infty \) cannot be determined. I am in 1st year of college(my age is 18).

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestI guess that you cannot let \(S=1+2+4+8+16+\ldots \infty\) because the sum of the geometric progression does not converge (approaches infinity). Also, you cannot subtract equation \((2)\) with \((1)\) because both \(S\) and \(2S\) do not exist.

Log in to reply

I think you mean to say ,we can't find sum of geometric progression which converges to infinity!!! Is it so ???

Log in to reply

Yes sorry for not being clear.

Log in to reply

Got a reason. If S is infinity. Then 2*infinity is also infinity. This means there will be nothing like 2S for infinity.Also you can't apply operations like addition or subtraction etc to infinity. If you will say that assuming n terms where n tends to infinity and apply operations. Then the result will be something which is likely to be.

Log in to reply

Before writing the statement "S is equal to.." you must prove the convergence of the series. If the series converges, then only it has a limiting value, which you may call S. If you assume that S exists before proving its existence, then anomalous results as the above may pop up. Here the series does not converge (rather it diverges) simply because its the sequence of its partial sums is not bounded.

Log in to reply

It looks like to be on the same pattern as we derive formula for infinite sum of G.P. But there was |r| < 1. We can't use this pattern in such case where |x| > 1. Because the terms are increasing at a large rate and uncertainty of one last infinitely large term may result in false value.

Log in to reply

I don't think so as we can add or subtract anything to infinity and it will not affect anything

Log in to reply

For |x|> 1 G.P. diverges. So, sum can't be found.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Uncertainty of one term may result in this false value. Because if you get to same approach by using sigma instead of value. You will get the desired result. Explain me if you know the exact reason.

Log in to reply

Because infinite does not follow general Algebraic rule of operations(+,-,x,÷).

Log in to reply

Hey are you still in ISM dhanbad ???

Log in to reply

Let us take an another geometric progression \(T_n= 1,\frac {1}{2},\frac {1}{4},\frac {1}{8},\frac {1}{16}......\) and let \(S\) be it's sum

I.e \(S= (1+\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{4}+\frac {1}{8}+\frac {1}{16}......)----(1)\) \((2S =2+1+\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{4}+\frac {1}{8}+\frac {1}{16}......)----(2) \) Now \(2S-2= (1+\frac {1}{2}+\frac {1}{4}+\frac {1}{8}+\frac {1}{16}......)\)

\(2S=4\) and hence \(S= 2\) which is absolutely correct as \(S\) has actual value of \(+2\). Why it seems to be correct and not the above one

sorry for my poor English I am not very much fluent \(:-) \)

Log in to reply

That's what I said earlier your procedure is correct when S is finite but same thing is not applicable when S is infinite because the value of \(\displaystyle \infty - \infty \) cannot be determined. I am in 1st year of college(my age is 18).

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply