Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there a formal definition for series? For example, cardinal sum has a formal definition such that $\sum a_i$ = $\bigcup a_i$. Is there any clear definition for series of real or complex number?

The definition on my book is the sum of $a_0 + ... + a_n$. This seems very intuitive to me so i don't like it..

I tried to define series such that $\gamma(0) = a_0$ and $\gamma(n+1) = f_n(\gamma(n))$ where $f_n(x) = x+ a_n$

Since $f_n ≠ f_{n+1}$, i can't apply finite recurssion theorem. However it seems obvious that $\gamma$ is a function and unique. How do i prove the existence and uniqueness of $\gamma$?


I have proved that "If A is a set, 'c' a fixed point in A and $f_n : A →A$ a function for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$, then there exists a unique function $\gamma : \mathbb{N} →A$ such that $\gamma(0) = c$ and $\gamma(n+1) = f_n(\gamma(n))$. This is a bit generalized form of original finite recursion theorem. Let $\alpha$ be a sequence. Let $f_n(x)=x+\alpha(n+1) : F→F$. (F denotes an arbitrary field here) Then by above theorem, we can construct $\gamma$. It can be easily checked that $\gamma(n)$ is a summation of $a_0,...,a_n$.

By the way, i've never said series is a 'finite summation'. Of course, series is a sequence..

share|improve this question
4  
Sure; look in any real analysis textbook. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jun 24 '12 at 7:32
    
@Qiaochu given a sequence {$a_n$}, $\sum a_n$ denotes $a_0$ + ... $a_n$, p59. PMA -Rudin –  Katlus Jun 24 '12 at 7:40
2  
Well, that's because there isn't such a function (consider what happens if $\gamma(n) = \gamma(m)$ but $a_{n+1} \neq a_{m+1}$). –  Qiaochu Yuan Jun 24 '12 at 7:52
1  
Once again: to accept an answer less than 45 minutes after the question was asked has some questionable consequences. –  Did Jun 24 '12 at 8:21
1  
@Katlus Please notice that $a_0+\ldots +a_n$ is not a series. You should probably write $\{a_0+\ldots + a_n\}_{n \geq 1}$ or something alike. –  Siminore Jun 24 '12 at 8:30

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Take any sequence $(a_0,a_0,\ldots)$ of real numbers. Define a function $r$ on finite sequences of real numbers such that if $s$ has length $n-1>0$, $r(s)$ is the last value of $s$ plus $a_n$. If the length of $s$ is $0$ (which we allow), then $r(s)=a_0$. The (countable) recursion theorem gives you a unique sequence $(b_0,b_1\ldots)$ such that $b_{n+1}=b_n+a_{n+1}$ and that defines your series. Note that the recursion is allowed to depend on all finite sequence of values.

There are two things you might think are not rigorous here: The "length" and the "last value". A finite sequence is a function with domain being a finite ordinal. This ordinal is the length, which is therefore well-defined. the elements of an ordinal are again ordinals and the value at the largest such ordinal in the domain is the "last value".

share|improve this answer
    
Sorry that i changed my question while you were posting it .. Would you please tell me how do i define such $b$? The finite recurssion theorem i know has $f$ doesn't depend on its 'input' value..(described in my edited question) –  Katlus Jun 24 '12 at 8:13
    
You cannot use the recursion theorem you mentioned, which is why use a stronger version in which one takes finite sequences as inputs. It is a special version of the general recursion theorem you find in set theory books. –  Michael Greinecker Jun 24 '12 at 8:17
    
I have proved that "If A is a set, 'c' a fixed point in A and $f_n : A →A$ a function for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$, then there exists a unique function $\gamma : \mathbb{N} →A$ such that $\gamma(0) = c$ and $\gamma(n+1) = f_n(\gamma(n))$. –  Katlus Jun 24 '12 at 12:08
    
which is a little generalized form of original finite recursion theorem. With this I have defined series as a sequence and it works fine. Thanks for your help :) –  Katlus Jun 24 '12 at 12:10

$$\sum_{i=1}^2a_i=a_1+a_2$$

$$\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}a_i=\sum_{i=1}^na_i+a_{n+1}$$

$$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}a_i=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=1}^na_i$$ if the limit exists.

share|improve this answer
1  
I do not like this definition. I believe that a series is a sequence. You write that a series is the limit of a sequence. This might generate some confusion, because you should not even speak of the series $\sum_n (-1)^n$. –  Siminore Jun 24 '12 at 8:24
    
I am quite happy to speak of the series $\sum_n(-1)^n$; I speak of it as a divergent series. But if you don't like that, define $\sum^{\infty}a_i$ to be the sequence $(\sum^1a_i,\sum^2a_i,\sum^3a_i,\dots)$. –  Gerry Myerson Jun 24 '12 at 9:23
    
Well, we should probably agree on the most economic definition. –  Siminore Jun 24 '12 at 9:47
1  
@Siminore, the most economic definition is "six". –  Gerry Myerson Jun 24 '12 at 12:20
    
I can't understand the last comment, sorry. –  Siminore Jun 24 '12 at 12:22

To answer the question in the title, a series is a pair of sequences $(x_n)_{n\geqslant0}$ and $(S_n)_{n\geqslant0}$ such that $S_n=\sum\limits_{k=0}^nx_k$ for every $n\geqslant0$ (with the obvious modifications for sequences and series indexed by $n\geqslant i$ with $i\ne0$).

share|improve this answer
    
I think this is a formal but correct definition. –  Siminore Jun 24 '12 at 8:25
1  
@Siminore: Yes, formal (whatever that means) and correct. –  Did Jun 24 '12 at 8:27
    
Of course :-) I wrote that because the OP seems to prefer a rather "colloquial" definition. By the way, His/her textbook states that a series is a finite sum! –  Siminore Jun 24 '12 at 8:28
1  
@Siminore: Yep, you are right that there are definitely some serious misconceptions at work here. Unfortunately, apart from that, I am not even sure of what the question is really... –  Did Jun 24 '12 at 8:36

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.