0
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

I'm having trouble understanding the 2nd line. So, just looking at the 3rd line (4.9), I can see that this is true, ie, each term in the series will $= 1$ if $j=k$ by orthogonality of the trig system, and summing that N times gives N if $j = k$, but all terms 0 if $j \neq k$

But then, using the partial sum equation in line 2, if $j = k$, the partial sum is $\frac{0}{0}$?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

In the given proof, there were two minor omissions, which may have been the source of your doubts about the proof.

First omission . . .

The line in the proof which started with $$ \text{For}\;\,0\le j\le N-1\;\text{. . .} \qquad\qquad\qquad\; $$ should have been $$ \text{For}\;\,0\le j,k\le N-1\;\text{. . .} \qquad\qquad\;\;\;\;\; $$

Second omission . . .

Let $N$ be a positive integer, and let $r\in\mathbb{C}$.

The stated formula should have been $$ \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}r^n = \begin{cases} {\Large{\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}}}&&\text{if}\;r\ne 1\\[4pt] N&&\text{if}\;r=1\\ \end{cases} \qquad\;\;\; $$ With those corrections, let $$ r=e^{2i\pi(j-k)/N} \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad $$ Then for the case $j=k$, we have $r=1$, so the identity $$ \sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left[e^{2i\pi(j-k)/N}\right]^n=N \qquad\qquad\qquad\;\;\; $$ is immediate.

For the case $j\ne k$, since $0\le j,k\le N-1$, it follows that $2\pi(j-k)/N$ is not an integer multiple of $2\pi$.

Hence $r\ne 1$, so \begin{align*} &\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\left[e^{2i\pi(j-k)/N}\right]^n\\[4pt] =&\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}r^n\\[4pt] =&\frac{1-r^N}{1-r}\\[4pt] =&\;0\;\;\;\text{[since $r^N=e^{2i\pi(j-k)}=1$, and $1-r\ne 0$]}\\[4pt] \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Well large part of the issue seems that the first line is completly false. The identity does not hold when r=1 and also does not seem to hold when r is negative. Since this is a proof such information about r should be contained in hypothesis, and in that case the case of j=k has to be treated separately.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ huh ok, weird.. $\endgroup$ – MinYoung Kim Jul 12 at 10:20
0
$\begingroup$

You have to handle the case $j=k$ separately. It is obvious that the sum is $N$ when $j=k$ because each term is just $1$.

The line just above (4.9) is not valid when $j=k$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For the partial sum equation in line 2, if $j = k$, we get $\frac{1-e^0}{1-e^0} = \frac{0}{0}$. But clearly that is not correct? $\endgroup$ – MinYoung Kim Jul 12 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ What I am saying is for $j=k$ prove (4.9) without referring to previous line. Just see what LHS is. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Jul 12 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ I get that just looking at (4.9) with $j=k$, we get sum = N. But if we use equation in line 2, we don't get it. My question is why is there a discrepancy? $\endgroup$ – MinYoung Kim Jul 12 at 10:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Equation in line 2 is not valid when $r=k$. Division by $0$ is not allowed in Mathematics. So there is a mistake in that line. $\endgroup$ – Kavi Rama Murthy Jul 12 at 10:11
  • $\begingroup$ oh ok. so equation 2 is just a "general" form, but when we are considering j =k, it's not applicable because we divide by zero. $\endgroup$ – MinYoung Kim Jul 12 at 10:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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