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.

Why is $\displaystyle \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty} 0.7^n$ equal $1/(1-0.7) = 10/3$ ?

Can we generalize the above to

$\displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} x^n = \frac{1}{1-x}$ ?

Are there some values of $x$ for which the above formula is invalid?

What about if we take only a finite number of terms? Is there a simpler formula?

$\displaystyle \sum_{n=0}^{N} x^n$

Is there a name for such a sequence?


This is being repurposed in an effort to cut down on duplicates, see here: Coping with abstract duplicate questions.

and here: List of abstract duplicates.

share|improve this question
4  
This is a geometric series. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula –  lhf Mar 25 '11 at 15:47
    
Please replace the starting index $n=1$ by $n=0$ (otherwise the resulting sum is $0.7$ times what you wrote). –  Did Mar 25 '11 at 17:59
    
@Jonas: Fair point: done. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 25 '11 at 19:18
    
@Didier: That was my fault upon edit; fixed. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 25 '11 at 19:19
    
@Arturo: Thanks. Sorry, I shouldn't have deleted my comment; I did so after I saw you had changed the title, and only then saw your comment. (To anyone who is confused: I had pointed out that including "geometric series" in the title gave additional context that made lhf's and yoyo's first sentences seem a little strange.) –  Jonas Meyer Mar 25 '11 at 19:41

4 Answers 4

up vote 114 down vote accepted
+500

By definition, a "series" (an "infinite sum") $$\sum_{n=k}^{\infty} a_n$$ is defined to be a limit, namely $$\sum_{n=k}^{\infty} a_n= \lim_{N\to\infty} \sum_{n=k}^N a_n.$$ That is, the "infinite sum" is the limit of the "partial sums", if this limit exists. If the limit exists, equal to some number $S$, we say the series "converges" to the limit, and we write $$\sum_{n=k}^{\infty} a_n = S.$$ If the limit does not exist, we say the series diverges and is not equal to any number.

So writing that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} 0.7^n = \frac{1}{1-0.7}$$ means that we are asserting that $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \sum_{n=0}^N0.7^n = \frac{1}{1-0.7}.$$

So what your question is really asking is: why is this limit equal to $\frac{1}{1-0.7}$? (Or rather, that is the only way to make sense of the question).

In order to figure out the limit, it is useful (but not strictly necessary) to have a formula for the partial sums, $$s_N = \sum_{n=0}^N 0.7^n.$$ This is where the formulas others have given come in. If you take the $N$th partial sum and multiply by $0.7$, you get $$\begin{array}{rcrcrcrcrcrcl} s_N &= 1 &+& (0.7) &+& (0.7)^2 &+& \cdots &+& (0.7)^N\\ (0.7)s_N &= &&(0.7) &+& (0.7)^2 &+&\cdots &+&(0.7)^N &+& (0.7)^{N+1} \end{array}$$ so that $$(1-0.7)s_N = s_N - (0.7)s_N = 1 - (0.7)^{N+1}.$$ Solving for $s_N$ gives $$s_N = \frac{1 - (0.7)^{N+1}}{1-0.7}.$$ What is the limit as $N\to\infty$? The only part of the expression that depends on $N$ is $(0.7)^{N+1}$. Since $|0.7|\lt 1$, then $\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}(0.7)^{N+1} = 0$. So, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}s_N = \lim_{N\to\infty}\left(\frac{1-(0.7)^{N+1}}{1-0.7}\right) = \frac{\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}1 - \lim\limits_{N\to\infty}(0.7)^{N+1}}{\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}1 - 0.7} = \frac{1 - 0}{1-0.7} = \frac{1}{1-0.7}.$$ Since the limit exists, then we write $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(0.7)^n = \frac{1}{1-0.7}.$$

More generally, a sum of the form $$a + ar + ar^2 + ar^3 + \cdots + ar^k$$ with $a$ and $r$ constant is said to be a "geometric series" with initial term $a$ and common ratio $r$. If $a=0$, then the sum is equal to $0$. If $r=1$, then the sum is equal to $(k+1)a$. If $r\neq 1$, then we can proceed as above. Letting $$S = a +ar + \cdots + ar^k$$ we have that $$S - rS = (a+ar+\cdots+ar^k) - (ar+ar^2+\cdots+a^{k+1}) = a - ar^{k+1}$$ so that $$(1-r)S = a(1 - r^{k+1}).$$ Dividing through by $1-r$ (which is not zero since $r\neq 1$), we get $$S = \frac{a(1-r^{k+1})}{1-r}.$$

A series of the form $$ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}ar^{n} $$ with $a$ and $r$ constants is called an infinite geometric series. If $r=1$, then $$ \lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{N}ar^{n} = \lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{N}a = \lim_{N\to\infty}(N+1)a = \infty, $$ so the series diverges. If $r\neq 1$, then using the formula above we have: $$ \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}ar^n = \lim_{N\to\infty}\sum_{n=0}^{N}ar^{N} = \lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{a(1-r^{N+1})}{1-r}. $$ The limit exists if and only if $\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}r^{N+1}$ exists. Since $$ \lim_{N\to\infty}r^{N+1} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0 &\mbox{if $|r|\lt 1$;}\\ 1 & \mbox{if $r=1$;}\\ \text{does not exist} &\mbox{if $r=-1$ or $|r|\gt 1$} \end{array}\right. $$ it follows that: $$ \begin{align*} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}ar^{n} &=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0 &\mbox{if $a=0$;}\\ \text{diverges}&\mbox{if $a\neq 0$ and $r=1$;}\\ \lim\limits_{N\to\infty}\frac{a(1-r^{N+1})}{1-r} &\mbox{if $r\neq 1$;}\end{array}\right.\\ &= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \text{diverges}&\mbox{if $a\neq 0$ and $r=1$;}\\ \text{diverges}&\mbox{if $a\neq 0$, and $r=-1$ or $|r|\gt 1$;}\\ \frac{a(1-0)}{1-r}&\mbox{if $|r|\lt 1$;} \end{array}\right.\\ &=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \text{diverges}&\mbox{if $a\neq 0$ and $|r|\geq 1$;}\\ \frac{a}{1-r}&\mbox{if $|r|\lt 1$.} \end{array}\right. \end{align*} $$

Your particular example has $a=1$ and $r=0.7$.


Since this recently came up (09/29/2011), let's provide a formal proof that $$ \lim_{N\to\infty}r^{N+1} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0 &\mbox{if $|r|\lt 1$;}\\ 1 & \mbox{if $r=1$;}\\ \text{does not exist} &\mbox{if $r=-1$ or $|r|\gt 1$} \end{array}\right. $$

If $r\gt 1$, then write $r=1+k$, with $k\gt0$. By the binomial theorem, $r^n = (1+k)^n \gt 1+nk$, so it suffices to show that for every real number $M$ there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $nk\gt M$. This is equivalent to asking for a natural number $n$ such that $n\gt \frac{M}{k}$, and this holds by the Archimedean property; hence if $r\gt 1$, then $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n$ does not exist. From this it follows that if $r\lt -1$ then the limit also does not exist: given any $M$, there exists $n$ such that $r^{2n}\gt M$ and $r^{2n+1}\lt M$, so $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n$ does not exist if $r\lt -1$.

If $r=-1$, then for every real number $L$ either $|L-1|\gt \frac{1}{2}$ or $|L+1|\gt \frac{1}{2}$. Thus, for every $L$ and for every $M$ there exists $n\gt M$ such that $|L-r^n|\gt \frac{1}{2}$ proving the limit cannot equal $L$; thus, the limit does not exist. If $r=1$, then $r^n=1$ for all $n$, so for every $\epsilon\gt 0$ we can take $N=1$, and for all $n\geq N$ we have $|r^n-1|\lt\epsilon$, hence $\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}1^n = 1$. Similarly, if $r=0$, then $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n = 0$ by taking $N=1$ for any $\epsilon\gt 0$.

Next, assume that $0\lt r\lt 1$. Then the sequence $\{r^n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is strictly decreasing and bounded below by $0$: we have $0\lt r \lt 1$, so multiplying by $r\gt 0$ we get $0\lt r^2 \lt r$. Assuming $0\lt r^{k+1}\lt r^k$, multiplying through by $r$ we get $0\lt r^{k+2}\lt r^{k+1}$, so by induction we have that $0\lt r^{n+1}\lt r^n$ for every $n$.

Since the sequence is bounded below, let $\rho\geq 0$ be the infimum of $\{r^n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. Then $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n =\rho$: indeed, let $\epsilon\gt 0$. By the definition of infimum, there exists $N$ such that $\rho\leq r^N\lt \rho+\epsilon$; hence for all $n\geq N$, $$|\rho-r^n| = r^n-\rho \leq r^N-\rho \lt\epsilon.$$ Hence $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n = \rho$.

In particular, $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^{2n} = \rho$, since $\{r^{2n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a subsequence of the converging sequence $\{r^n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. On the other hand, I claim that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^{2n} = \rho^2$: indeed, let $\epsilon\gt 0$. Then there exists $N$ such that for all $n\geq N$, $r^n - \rho\lt\epsilon$. Moreover, we can assume that $\epsilon$ is small enough so that $\rho+\epsilon\lt 1$. Then $$|r^{2n}-\rho^2| = |r^n-\rho||r^n+\rho| = (r^n-\rho)(r^n+\rho)\lt (r^n-\rho)(\rho+\epsilon) \lt r^n-\rho\lt\epsilon.$$ Thus, $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^{2n} = \rho^2$. Since a sequence can have only one limit, and the sequence of $r^{2n}$ converges to both $\rho$ and $\rho^2$, then $\rho=\rho^2$. Hence $\rho=0$ or $\rho=1$. But $\rho=\mathrm{inf}\{r^n\mid n\in\mathbb{N}\} \leq r \lt 1$. Hence $\rho=0$.

Thus, if $0\lt r\lt 1$, then $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n = 0$.

Finally, if $-1\lt r\lt 0$, then $0\lt |r|\lt 1$. Let $\epsilon\gt 0$. Then there exists $N$ such that for all $n\geq N$ we have $|r^n| = ||r|^n|\lt\epsilon$, since $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}|r|^n = 0$. Thus, for all $\epsilon\gt 0$ there exists $N$ such that for all $n\geq N$, $| r^n-0|\lt\epsilon$. This proves that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}r^n = 0$, as desired.

In summary, $$\lim_{N\to\infty}r^{N+1} = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0 &\mbox{if $|r|\lt 1$;}\\ 1 & \mbox{if $r=1$;}\\ \text{does not exist} &\mbox{if $r=-1$ or $|r|\gt 1$} \end{array}\right.$$


The argument suggested by Srivatsan Narayanan in the comments to deal with the case $0\lt|r|\lt 1$ is less clumsy than mine above: there exists $a\gt 0$ such that $|r|=\frac{1}{1+a}$. Then we can use the binomial theorem as above to get that $$|r^n| = |r|^n = \frac{1}{(1+a)^n} \leq \frac{1}{1+na} \lt \frac{1}{na}.$$ By the Archimedean Property, for every $\epsilon\gt 0$ there exists $N\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $Na\gt \frac{1}{\epsilon}$, and hence for all $n\geq N$, $\frac{1}{na}\leq \frac{1}{Na} \lt\epsilon$. This proves that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}|r|^n = 0$ when $0\lt|r|\lt 1$, without having to invoke the infimum property explicitly.

share|improve this answer
    
I think you mean "which is not zero since $r\neq 1$." –  robjb Mar 26 '11 at 23:20
    
@Rob: Yes; thank you. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 27 '11 at 0:22
25  
+1 As its rare to see math researchers caring for even elementary questions. –  Please Delete Account Mar 27 '11 at 2:18
1  
Ignore my edit, I seem to have potatoes on my eyes. Sorry. –  Lagerbaer Mar 31 '11 at 5:05
3  
Arturo, I will mention one more way of proving that $r^n$ converges to $0$ as $n \to \infty$ if $|r| < 1$ that looks somewhat similar to your proof in the divergent case. Take $|r| = \frac{1}{1+a}$ for some $a > 0$. Then $$|r^n - 0| = |r|^n = \frac{1}{(1+a)^n} \leq \frac{1}{1+an} \leq \frac{1}{an} ,$$ which can be made sufficiently small by taking $n$ large enough. –  Srivatsan Sep 30 '11 at 4:13

it's called a geometric series. let $-1<x<1$ and let $S_n=1+x+x^2+...+x^n$. then $xS_n=x+...+x^{n+1}=S^n-1+x^{n+1}$. move stuff around to get $$S_n=\frac{1-x^{n+1}}{1-x}$$ take the limit as $n\to\infty$ (noting that $x^n\to0$ if $|x|<1$)

share|improve this answer
    
In yoyo's answer, you should also take into account that $x^{n+1}\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$ if $|x| < 1$. –  knightofmathematics Mar 25 '11 at 16:48
1  
...and $0^0=1$ (: –  yoyo Mar 25 '11 at 19:03

If u expand your summation you get series $$1+0.7+0.7^2+\dots$$ as it is geometric series (you can see it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series) $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{0.7^n}=\frac{1}{1-0.7}$$

Or $S=1+x+x^2+\dots$

$xS_n=x+x^2+\dots=S-1$ now u take

$S-xS=1$

$S(1-x)=1 \implies S=\frac{1}{1-x}$

here your $x=0.7$

share|improve this answer
    
The index in the sum should be $n$, not $i$. –  Arturo Magidin Mar 25 '11 at 17:10
    
oops..i'll edit it –  amul28 Mar 26 '11 at 3:54

I find the proof here lovely.

share|improve this answer
    
The link here no longer seems to work. –  Baby Dragon Oct 6 '13 at 1:19
    
@BabyDragon Here is the updated link. –  David Mitra Oct 6 '13 at 9:12

protected by Aryabhata Mar 31 '11 at 17:18

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

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