# What is the sum of all real numbers from $0$ to $1$? [closed]

I wanted to know the approximate sum of real numbers from 0 to 1.

Please tell me how we can find it.

## closed as unclear what you're asking by user223391, user147263, Macavity, Claude Leibovici, DanielJun 29 '15 at 6:34

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• there are infinitely many(uncountable) numbers greater than $1/2.$ – abel Jun 28 '15 at 17:05
• It is difficult to take a sum of an uncountable number of numbers. Even if you restricted the sum to positive rational numbers in top half of the interval, you would get an infinite result. – Henry Jun 28 '15 at 17:05
• Something like $\int_{x=0}^1 x$ is more appropriate, I think. – davcha Jun 28 '15 at 17:13

The sum diverges: $$\large\sum_{a\in[0,1]}a=\sup_{\substack{\text{finite}\\S\subset[0,1]}}\sum_{a\in S}a\geq \sup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}\sum_{n=2}^N\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{n}\right)\geq\sup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}\left(\frac{N}{2}\right)=\infty$$

Observe this definition from Folland's real analysis book:

• Under this definition with $f(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in X$, we get $\sum_{x \in X} f(x) = \infty$ whenever there are uncountably many $x \in X$ such that $f(x)>0$. – Michael Jun 28 '15 at 17:17
• Indeed, that's Folland's next statement :) (image link) – Zev Chonoles Jun 28 '15 at 17:20
• Interesting. I have never seen such a definition. Perhaps it is only useful for that fact itself...which can be interpeted as saying that the sum is always infinity except at times when standard definitions of sums apply. =) Yet your quote says "We shall occasionally encounter uncountable sums," I wonder when such things would actually be encountered. – Michael Jun 28 '15 at 20:27
• @Michael Re: I wonder when such things would actually be encountered. I think that this might be a good question on the main site. (However, there were already some posts about this type of sum, so if you decide to post a separate question about this, you should search first.) I do not know where they are used in Folland's book. – Martin Sleziak Jul 2 '15 at 8:00
• One application I have seen is the definition of the Hilbert space $\ell_2(A)$. If you already learned about Hilbert spaces, you have certainly seen $\ell_2=\ell_2(\mathbb N)$, where the inner product is given by $\langle x,y \rangle = \sum\limits_{i\in\mathbb N} x_iy_i$. If we allow summation over arbitrary sets, then we can define $\ell_2(A)$ using almost the same construction; in this case, the inner product will be $\langle x,y \rangle = \sum\limits_{i\in A} x_iy_i$. It can be shown that this is indeed a Hilbert space and that every space is isomorphic to $\ell_2(A)$ for some set $A$. – Martin Sleziak Jul 2 '15 at 8:01

The sum is infinite. We don't really have a good definition for $$\sum_{x\in [0,1]}x,$$ But it seems reasonable that he following relation should hold for any proposed definition. $$\sum_{x\in\mathbb [0,1]} x\geq \sum_{n\in \mathbb N} \frac{1}{n}=\infty.$$

• Of course, thanks. – Alex S Jun 28 '15 at 17:08
• I will not downvote, but of course $\sum_{x \in [0,1]} x$ has no meaning since we cannot sum over an uncountably infinite set. – Michael Jun 28 '15 at 17:09
• Good point. I have edited my answer to reflect this. – Alex S Jun 28 '15 at 17:13
• @Michael: I have seen a commonly accepted definition of such a sum as long as every term of the sum is non-negative. Please see my answer for example. – Zev Chonoles Jun 28 '15 at 17:15
• @Michael: See for example this post and other posts linked to it for some further references. – Martin Sleziak Jun 30 '15 at 11:43