Can someone explain to me the paradox 1-2+3-4+... =1/4? I really don't get why and how. Thanks so much.

Printable View

- Apr 24th 2010, 07:20 AMchengbinWhy is the sum of 1-2+3-4+... is 1/4?
Can someone explain to me the paradox 1-2+3-4+... =1/4? I really don't get why and how. Thanks so much.

- Apr 24th 2010, 07:38 AMOpalg
- Apr 24th 2010, 08:26 PMmaddas
Call . Cancelling off the very first term by subtracting 1 gives so or .

Call . Add the series and together term by term to get . Since , or .

The remarkable thing, of course, is that you get the same answer if you do it "algebraically" like this as if you do it like Opalg does it (analytically, generating funtions). - Apr 24th 2010, 08:35 PMProve It
- Apr 24th 2010, 09:05 PMlvleph
There is no way this is 1/4. The reason? Because, integers are closed under addition.

- Apr 24th 2010, 09:34 PMmaddas
Any convergent series whose terms are integers has only finitely many non-zero terms. But closure only applies to finite sums. For instance, the rationals are closed under addition but the sum is irrational.

- Apr 25th 2010, 06:44 AMlvleph
Looks like I need to read up on my Real Analysis again, because this is not making sense to me.

- Apr 25th 2010, 06:56 AMBacterius
Lvleph is right in a sense. Since you only consider the addition and the substraction of integer terms, you cannot possibly end up with a non-integer result. So the original statement cannot be right !

- Apr 25th 2010, 07:20 AMchengbin
Read this

1 ? 2 + 3 ? 4 + · · · - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know enough math to understand the "proofs" in that article. Can anyone explain the number manipulation method? It seems like the proof that requires the least amount of math knowledge to understand. - Apr 25th 2010, 08:39 AMlvleph
Things get weird when we begin talking infinity though. But then again, the abstract algebra sense of the Integers does include an infinite collection. Even the linear algebra sense gives you closure since the Integers are a vector space.

EDIT: I can see how this would be 1/4 in the formal power sense (which is what maddas was saying), but this sub forum is not that advanced. - Apr 25th 2010, 09:32 AMWilmer
Nothing else to do, so I'm trying:

1 - 2 - 3 + 4 + 5 - 6 - 7 + 8 + 9 -10 - 11 + 12 + 13 ....

Well, this gives me running totals of 1, -4, 5, -8, 9, -12, 13 ...

Now how in heck can I paradoxize this (Nerd) - Apr 25th 2010, 09:54 AMtonio
- Apr 25th 2010, 09:57 AMtonio

Nop, this is not a good reason: the conterexample shows that a sum of only rational numbers can have a non-rational sum...of course, as already noted, the gist here is that the sum is infinite and thus closedness and other related things do not apply here.

Tonio - Apr 25th 2010, 10:00 AMtonio
- Apr 25th 2010, 10:18 AMmaddas
The value of the series depends on the method used to sum it. Everyone knows that the series diverges in the traditional sense (aka. the partial sums are eventually graeater in magnitude than any number). The series is Abel summable to 1/4. The wikipedia article the OP linked discusses other summability methods under which it converges. In some sense, any "reasonable" summation method which sums this series must give 1/4. Hardy has a book on divergent series for anyone interested in these sums and their applications.

(Also, Wilmer, you have wrong series; the signs alternate every term, not every two terms. The partial sums are actually 0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3,...)