Why does the following hold:
\begin{equation*}
\displaystyle \sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty} 0.7^n=\frac{1}{1-0.7} = 10/3 ?
\end{equation*}
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.
Answer
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,
$$\lim_{N\to\infty}s_N = \lim_{N\to\infty}\left(\frac{1-(0.7)^{N+1}}{1-0.7}\right) = \frac{\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}1 - \lim\limits_{N\to\infty}(0.7)^{N+1}}{\lim\limits_{N\to\infty}1 - \lim\limits_{N\to\infty}0.7} = \frac{1 - 0}{1-0.7} = \frac{1}{1-0.7}.$$
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment