Consider the following table of numbers:
\[ \large \begin{array} { c | c |c |c |c |c } \, & & & & & \\ \hline & \frac{1}{ 1 \times 2 } & \frac{1}{2 \times 3 } & \frac{1}{3 \times 4} & \frac{1}{4 \times 5} & \ldots \\ \hline & & \frac{1}{2 \times 3 } & \frac{1}{3 \times 4} & \frac{1}{4 \times 5} & \ldots \\ \hline & & & \frac{1}{3 \times 4} & \frac{1}{4 \times 5} & \ldots \\ \hline & & & & \frac{1}{4 \times 5} & \ldots \\ \hline & & & & & \ddots \\ \end{array}\]
If we sum up the first column, we get \( \frac{1}{1 \times 2 } = \frac{1}{2} \).
If we sum up the second column, we get \( \frac{2}{2 \times 3 } = \frac{1}{3} \).
If we sum up the third column, we get \( \frac{3}{3 \times 4 } = \frac{1}{4} \).
This pattern continues, hence the sum of all the terms is
\[ S = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \ldots \]
Now, let's sum up the rows using partial fractions to get a telescoping series.
If we sum up the first row, we get \( \displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^\infty \frac{ 1}{ i (i+1) } = 1 \).
If we sum up the second row, we get \( \displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^\infty \frac{ 1}{ i (i+1) } = \frac{1}{2} \).
If we sum up the third row, we get \( \displaystyle \sum_{i=3}^\infty \frac{ 1}{ i (i+1) } = \frac{1}{3} \).
This pattern continues, hence the sum of all the terms is
\[ S = \color{red}{1} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \ldots \]
Where did the \( \color{red} { 1} \) come from?
Note by
Calvin Lin
4 years ago
Easy Math Editor
*italics*or_italics_**bold**or__bold__paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)> This is a quote# I indented these lines # 4 spaces, and now they show # up as a code block. print "hello world"2 \times 32^{34}a_{i-1}\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{2}\sum_{i=1}^3\sin \theta\boxed{123}Comments
Sort by:
Top NewestHere's an even simpler example to show why this is flawed: consider the sum \[S=1+1+1+\cdots\] What happens when we group it as follows: \[S=1+(1+1+1+\cdots)\] That means \[S=1+S\] so \(0=1\). something is obviously wrong here.
Log in to reply
Oh...... Last year there was this note where someone proved that \(0 = 1\).... I think I still get it......
Log in to reply
The trick is that the sum of all the terms \(S\) is actually infinite. We can recognize this because we know that the sum of the harmonic series is infinity.
Thus, we are actually saying that \( \infty = \infty + 1 \). We cannot conclude that \( 0 = 1 \), because we do not have additive inverse of infinity, namely that \( \infty - \infty \neq 0 \).
Of course, conversely, the above is (can be modified to) a proof by contradiction that the sum of the harmonic series is infinity.
Log in to reply
Suppose \(S=1+\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{3}+\cdots\) is finite. Then, by the summations we did above, \(S-1 = S\). Since \(S\) is finite, we can subtract \(S\) from both sides to get \(-1=0\), contradiction.
Thus, \(S\) is infinite.
Log in to reply
Yeah, thought so. Nice little note; divergent series are such pesky things.
Log in to reply
Both series diverge so technically they are both positive infinity and are "equal".
Log in to reply
Actually, you are not exactly dealing with a convergent series.
Log in to reply
It's because infinity is weird... :)
Log in to reply
WHEN WE SUM UP THE FIRST ROW WE WILL GET 1
Log in to reply
wait S isn't even well defined
Log in to reply
I am fairy certain the top row does not approach 1... More like it approaches 0.75, The second row does not approach 1/2, more like it approaches 0.2 (both of these are quick evaluations and would require more time to evaluate) but I think the math holds up, just not the assumptions.
Log in to reply
Step 1: Assume: 1/2+1/3+1/4+... converges: Then: [insert original post here] Which is a contradiction. Thus, 1/2+1/3+... diverges
Log in to reply