How to use a conditional statement in an infinite series to approach a specific limitSolving alternate...

How spaceships determine each other's mass in space?

Issue with units for a rocket nozzle throat area problem

What is Tony Stark injecting into himself in Iron Man 3?

Exempt portion of equation line from aligning?

PTIJ: Sport in the Torah

In Diabelli's "Duet in D" for piano, what are these brackets on chords that look like vertical slurs?

How to write a chaotic neutral protagonist and prevent my readers from thinking they are evil?

Should I apply for my boss's promotion?

How would an energy-based "projectile" blow up a spaceship?

Is "cogitate" used appropriately in "I cogitate that success relies on hard work"?

Why does a car's steering wheel get lighter with increasing speed

A vote on the Brexit backstop

After Brexit, will the EU recognize British passports that are valid for more than ten years?

What do you call someone who likes to pick fights?

Why restrict private health insurance?

Limpar string com Regex

Why would /etc/passwd be used every time someone executes `ls -l` command?

Is it a Cyclops number? "Nobody" knows!

Help! My Character is too much for her story!

Can the Witch Sight warlock invocation see through the Mirror Image spell?

What is the oldest European royal house?

Is it appropriate to ask a former professor to order a library book for me through ILL?

How do you use environments that have the same name within a single latex document?

Use Mercury as quenching liquid for swords?



How to use a conditional statement in an infinite series to approach a specific limit


Solving alternate infinite seriesOperations on two conditionssum of an infinite geometric seriesLimit of infinite series involving harmonic numbersConvergence test for specific series with (-1) to nRandom subseries of harmonic series expected to converge, but how often does it?$sum sum x^i$ Infinite Series ProblemInfinite series containing ceiling functionFinding Fourier series by evaluating sum of infinite seriesSolving alternate infinite seriesTesting a series for conditional convergence













1












$begingroup$


If I were to sum the infinite series:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n} = frac{1}{2^1}+frac{1}{2^2}...frac{1}{2^infty}$$



but as soon as the previous partial sum
$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}}$ becomes greater than 0.9 I subtract $frac{1}{2^n}$ instead of adding it, forcing the series to approach 0.9.



What would would be the simplest form to write that, possibly using Iverson brackets? I'm not sure how to deal with the negative value though.



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n}.[sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9]$$



or is this valid?



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} > 0.9 end {cases}$$



or maybe:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} > 0.9 end {cases}$$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Did you think about a recursive definition? $f(1) = frac1{2^1}.$ For $n > 1$: $f(n) = +frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) leq 0.9$ and $f(n) = -frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) > 0.9$.
    $endgroup$
    – jflipp
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    That is kind of what I was hoping for. I just need to express it as elegantly as possible because it's part of a much larger expression which I would like to keep as succinct as possible.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Stackoverflow suggested this related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2663358/… which I think is quite nifty. Unless there are better suggestions I will probably go with something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Using Iverson brackets, $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $$f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].$$ This even works with $n=1$, as long as you suppose that $sum_{k=1}^{0}f(k)$ is the empty sum with value $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Earnest
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The identity in my previous comment holds, though only for $n>2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday
















1












$begingroup$


If I were to sum the infinite series:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n} = frac{1}{2^1}+frac{1}{2^2}...frac{1}{2^infty}$$



but as soon as the previous partial sum
$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}}$ becomes greater than 0.9 I subtract $frac{1}{2^n}$ instead of adding it, forcing the series to approach 0.9.



What would would be the simplest form to write that, possibly using Iverson brackets? I'm not sure how to deal with the negative value though.



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n}.[sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9]$$



or is this valid?



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} > 0.9 end {cases}$$



or maybe:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} > 0.9 end {cases}$$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Did you think about a recursive definition? $f(1) = frac1{2^1}.$ For $n > 1$: $f(n) = +frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) leq 0.9$ and $f(n) = -frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) > 0.9$.
    $endgroup$
    – jflipp
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    That is kind of what I was hoping for. I just need to express it as elegantly as possible because it's part of a much larger expression which I would like to keep as succinct as possible.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Stackoverflow suggested this related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2663358/… which I think is quite nifty. Unless there are better suggestions I will probably go with something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Using Iverson brackets, $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $$f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].$$ This even works with $n=1$, as long as you suppose that $sum_{k=1}^{0}f(k)$ is the empty sum with value $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Earnest
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The identity in my previous comment holds, though only for $n>2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday














1












1








1


0



$begingroup$


If I were to sum the infinite series:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n} = frac{1}{2^1}+frac{1}{2^2}...frac{1}{2^infty}$$



but as soon as the previous partial sum
$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}}$ becomes greater than 0.9 I subtract $frac{1}{2^n}$ instead of adding it, forcing the series to approach 0.9.



What would would be the simplest form to write that, possibly using Iverson brackets? I'm not sure how to deal with the negative value though.



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n}.[sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9]$$



or is this valid?



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} > 0.9 end {cases}$$



or maybe:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} > 0.9 end {cases}$$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




If I were to sum the infinite series:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n} = frac{1}{2^1}+frac{1}{2^2}...frac{1}{2^infty}$$



but as soon as the previous partial sum
$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}}$ becomes greater than 0.9 I subtract $frac{1}{2^n}$ instead of adding it, forcing the series to approach 0.9.



What would would be the simplest form to write that, possibly using Iverson brackets? I'm not sure how to deal with the negative value though.



$$sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^n}.[sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9]$$



or is this valid?



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^infty frac{1}{2^{n-1}} > 0.9 end {cases}$$



or maybe:



$$sum_{i=1}^infty f(n)=begin {cases} frac{1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} < 0.9\
frac{-1}{2^n} & sum_{i=1}^{n-1} frac{1}{2^n} > 0.9 end {cases}$$







sequences-and-series convergence notation






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday







dataphile

















asked yesterday









dataphiledataphile

3681310




3681310








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Did you think about a recursive definition? $f(1) = frac1{2^1}.$ For $n > 1$: $f(n) = +frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) leq 0.9$ and $f(n) = -frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) > 0.9$.
    $endgroup$
    – jflipp
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    That is kind of what I was hoping for. I just need to express it as elegantly as possible because it's part of a much larger expression which I would like to keep as succinct as possible.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Stackoverflow suggested this related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2663358/… which I think is quite nifty. Unless there are better suggestions I will probably go with something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Using Iverson brackets, $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $$f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].$$ This even works with $n=1$, as long as you suppose that $sum_{k=1}^{0}f(k)$ is the empty sum with value $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Earnest
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The identity in my previous comment holds, though only for $n>2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Did you think about a recursive definition? $f(1) = frac1{2^1}.$ For $n > 1$: $f(n) = +frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) leq 0.9$ and $f(n) = -frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) > 0.9$.
    $endgroup$
    – jflipp
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    That is kind of what I was hoping for. I just need to express it as elegantly as possible because it's part of a much larger expression which I would like to keep as succinct as possible.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    Stackoverflow suggested this related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2663358/… which I think is quite nifty. Unless there are better suggestions I will probably go with something like that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Using Iverson brackets, $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $$f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].$$ This even works with $n=1$, as long as you suppose that $sum_{k=1}^{0}f(k)$ is the empty sum with value $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Earnest
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The identity in my previous comment holds, though only for $n>2$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday








2




2




$begingroup$
Did you think about a recursive definition? $f(1) = frac1{2^1}.$ For $n > 1$: $f(n) = +frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) leq 0.9$ and $f(n) = -frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) > 0.9$.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
yesterday




$begingroup$
Did you think about a recursive definition? $f(1) = frac1{2^1}.$ For $n > 1$: $f(n) = +frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) leq 0.9$ and $f(n) = -frac1{2^n}$ if $f(1) + cdots + f(n-1) > 0.9$.
$endgroup$
– jflipp
yesterday












$begingroup$
That is kind of what I was hoping for. I just need to express it as elegantly as possible because it's part of a much larger expression which I would like to keep as succinct as possible.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




$begingroup$
That is kind of what I was hoping for. I just need to express it as elegantly as possible because it's part of a much larger expression which I would like to keep as succinct as possible.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday












$begingroup$
Stackoverflow suggested this related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2663358/… which I think is quite nifty. Unless there are better suggestions I will probably go with something like that.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




$begingroup$
Stackoverflow suggested this related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2663358/… which I think is quite nifty. Unless there are better suggestions I will probably go with something like that.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Using Iverson brackets, $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $$f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].$$ This even works with $n=1$, as long as you suppose that $sum_{k=1}^{0}f(k)$ is the empty sum with value $0$.
$endgroup$
– Mike Earnest
yesterday






$begingroup$
Using Iverson brackets, $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $$f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].$$ This even works with $n=1$, as long as you suppose that $sum_{k=1}^{0}f(k)$ is the empty sum with value $0$.
$endgroup$
– Mike Earnest
yesterday






1




1




$begingroup$
The identity in my previous comment holds, though only for $n>2$.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday




$begingroup$
The identity in my previous comment holds, though only for $n>2$.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Using Iverson brackets, this can be written as $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $f(n)$ is defined by
$$
f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].
$$

When $n=1$, we use the convention $sum_{k=1}^0f(k)=0$, as this is the empty sum.



Unlike most function definitions (let $f(n)=n^2$), this one is inductive, so it takes a little thought to convince yourself that it is a valid definition. Since the value of $f(n)$ only depends on the value of $f(k)$ for $k<n$, with the base case $f(1)=1$, there is no problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    23 hours ago





















1












$begingroup$

Claim:



The sign of the $k$-th term is precisely $(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}$, excep for $k=1$ and $k=2$. To be precise, setting
$$f(1):=frac12,
qquad
f(2):=frac14,
qquadtext{ and }qquad
f(k):=frac{(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}}{2^k}
quad
text{ for all }k>2,$$

yields the desired sum. This means that for all $mgeq1$ the partial sum $S_m:=sum_{k=1}^mf(k)$ satisfies
$$begin{array}{ccc}
S_m<0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)>0,\
S_m>0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)<0.tag{1}
end{array}$$



Proof:



This is clear for $m=1$ and $m=2$. To simplify $(1)$ note that $S_mneq0.9$ for all $m$ because the denominator of $S_m$ is a power of $2$ whereas $0.9=frac{3}{10}$. So $(1)$ is equivalent to
$$S_m<0.9qquadiffqquad f(m+1)>0.$$
Moreover, the sign of $f(m+1)$ can be expressed simply in terms of $m$ because
$$f(m+1)>0
quadiffquad
(-1)^{lfloortfrac{m+2}{2}rfloor}>0
quadiffquad
m+2equiv2,3pmod{4}.$$

For $m>2$, to get rid of the first two irregular terms in the partial sum $S_m$, set $T_m:=sum_{k=3}^mf(k)$. Then $T_m=S_m-tfrac34$ and $(1)$ now simplifies to
$$T_m>frac{3}{20}qquadiffqquad mequiv0,1pmod{4}.$$
Writing out the first few summands of $T_m$ shows that if $m$ is even we can group the summands into pairs to get a simple geometric sum, for which it is easy to find a closed form:
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n}&=&left(frac{1}{8}+frac{1}{16}right)
-left(frac{1}{32}+frac{1}{64}right)
+left(frac{1}{128}+frac{1}{256}right)
-cdots\
&=&sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^kleft(frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{4}right)
=frac{3}{4}sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^k\
&=&frac{3}{4}frac{tfrac{1}{4}-left(-tfrac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}}{1-left(-tfrac14right)}
=frac{3}{20}left(1-left(-frac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}right)\
&=&frac{3}{20}+frac{3}{5}left(-frac{1}{4}right)^ntag{2}
end{eqnarray*}

In particular, this last expression shows that $T_{2n}>frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n}<frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all even $m$. For odd $m$, we simply add one summand to $(2)$ to get
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n+1}&=&
frac{3}{20}+frac35left(-frac{1}{4}right)^n+frac{(-1)^{2n+1}}{2^{2n+1}}\
&=&frac{3}{20}+(-1)^nfrac35left(frac{1}{4}right)^n-frac12left(frac{1}{4}right)^n\
&=&frac{3}{20}+left((-1)^nfrac35-frac12right)left(frac{1}{4}right)^n,
end{eqnarray*}

which shows that $T_{2n+1}>tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n+1}<tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all odd $m$, and hence for all $m$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    8 hours ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3139360%2fhow-to-use-a-conditional-statement-in-an-infinite-series-to-approach-a-specific%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

Using Iverson brackets, this can be written as $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $f(n)$ is defined by
$$
f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].
$$

When $n=1$, we use the convention $sum_{k=1}^0f(k)=0$, as this is the empty sum.



Unlike most function definitions (let $f(n)=n^2$), this one is inductive, so it takes a little thought to convince yourself that it is a valid definition. Since the value of $f(n)$ only depends on the value of $f(k)$ for $k<n$, with the base case $f(1)=1$, there is no problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    23 hours ago


















2












$begingroup$

Using Iverson brackets, this can be written as $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $f(n)$ is defined by
$$
f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].
$$

When $n=1$, we use the convention $sum_{k=1}^0f(k)=0$, as this is the empty sum.



Unlike most function definitions (let $f(n)=n^2$), this one is inductive, so it takes a little thought to convince yourself that it is a valid definition. Since the value of $f(n)$ only depends on the value of $f(k)$ for $k<n$, with the base case $f(1)=1$, there is no problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    23 hours ago
















2












2








2





$begingroup$

Using Iverson brackets, this can be written as $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $f(n)$ is defined by
$$
f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].
$$

When $n=1$, we use the convention $sum_{k=1}^0f(k)=0$, as this is the empty sum.



Unlike most function definitions (let $f(n)=n^2$), this one is inductive, so it takes a little thought to convince yourself that it is a valid definition. Since the value of $f(n)$ only depends on the value of $f(k)$ for $k<n$, with the base case $f(1)=1$, there is no problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Using Iverson brackets, this can be written as $sum_{n=1}^infty f(n)$, where $f(n)$ is defined by
$$
f(n)=2^{-n}-2^{-n+1}left[sum_{k=1}^{n-1}f(k) ge0.9right].
$$

When $n=1$, we use the convention $sum_{k=1}^0f(k)=0$, as this is the empty sum.



Unlike most function definitions (let $f(n)=n^2$), this one is inductive, so it takes a little thought to convince yourself that it is a valid definition. Since the value of $f(n)$ only depends on the value of $f(k)$ for $k<n$, with the base case $f(1)=1$, there is no problem.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Mike EarnestMike Earnest

24.3k22151




24.3k22151












  • $begingroup$
    It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    23 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
    $endgroup$
    – Hagen von Eitzen
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    @HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    23 hours ago


















$begingroup$
It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




$begingroup$
It is interesting to note that $frac{1}{2} - frac{1}{4} = frac{1}{4}$ which could be read as "ignore first term and flip the sign of the second term" which in turn could be used to reduce the infinite series to a closed form (I think). I'll persue that some more. I like that fact that 0.9 can be replaced by a variable here and that this expression could be applied to any value of that variable, which I wanted to know, although I neglected to mention that.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




2




2




$begingroup$
@dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday






$begingroup$
@dataphile That reduced form is just the binary expansion of $0.9$, of course. This makes the $n$th partial sum $$sum_{k=0}^n f(k)=frac{2lfloor 2^{n-1}cdot 0.9rfloor+1}{2^n}$$(By stubtracting consecutive partialsums, you can also regain a nice expression for $f(n)$)
$endgroup$
– Hagen von Eitzen
yesterday














$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
23 hours ago






$begingroup$
@HagenvonEitzen you hit the nail on the head. I've written a sine function that calculates $sin(theta)$ by adding up the binary expansion of the angle towards $theta$ and then using that to add up the opposing edges of those angles towards $sin(theta)$. Here is the javascript implementation: jsfiddle.net/dataphile/9j76oxma/11 I am trying to write the above implementation in math notation.
$endgroup$
– dataphile
23 hours ago













1












$begingroup$

Claim:



The sign of the $k$-th term is precisely $(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}$, excep for $k=1$ and $k=2$. To be precise, setting
$$f(1):=frac12,
qquad
f(2):=frac14,
qquadtext{ and }qquad
f(k):=frac{(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}}{2^k}
quad
text{ for all }k>2,$$

yields the desired sum. This means that for all $mgeq1$ the partial sum $S_m:=sum_{k=1}^mf(k)$ satisfies
$$begin{array}{ccc}
S_m<0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)>0,\
S_m>0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)<0.tag{1}
end{array}$$



Proof:



This is clear for $m=1$ and $m=2$. To simplify $(1)$ note that $S_mneq0.9$ for all $m$ because the denominator of $S_m$ is a power of $2$ whereas $0.9=frac{3}{10}$. So $(1)$ is equivalent to
$$S_m<0.9qquadiffqquad f(m+1)>0.$$
Moreover, the sign of $f(m+1)$ can be expressed simply in terms of $m$ because
$$f(m+1)>0
quadiffquad
(-1)^{lfloortfrac{m+2}{2}rfloor}>0
quadiffquad
m+2equiv2,3pmod{4}.$$

For $m>2$, to get rid of the first two irregular terms in the partial sum $S_m$, set $T_m:=sum_{k=3}^mf(k)$. Then $T_m=S_m-tfrac34$ and $(1)$ now simplifies to
$$T_m>frac{3}{20}qquadiffqquad mequiv0,1pmod{4}.$$
Writing out the first few summands of $T_m$ shows that if $m$ is even we can group the summands into pairs to get a simple geometric sum, for which it is easy to find a closed form:
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n}&=&left(frac{1}{8}+frac{1}{16}right)
-left(frac{1}{32}+frac{1}{64}right)
+left(frac{1}{128}+frac{1}{256}right)
-cdots\
&=&sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^kleft(frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{4}right)
=frac{3}{4}sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^k\
&=&frac{3}{4}frac{tfrac{1}{4}-left(-tfrac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}}{1-left(-tfrac14right)}
=frac{3}{20}left(1-left(-frac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}right)\
&=&frac{3}{20}+frac{3}{5}left(-frac{1}{4}right)^ntag{2}
end{eqnarray*}

In particular, this last expression shows that $T_{2n}>frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n}<frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all even $m$. For odd $m$, we simply add one summand to $(2)$ to get
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n+1}&=&
frac{3}{20}+frac35left(-frac{1}{4}right)^n+frac{(-1)^{2n+1}}{2^{2n+1}}\
&=&frac{3}{20}+(-1)^nfrac35left(frac{1}{4}right)^n-frac12left(frac{1}{4}right)^n\
&=&frac{3}{20}+left((-1)^nfrac35-frac12right)left(frac{1}{4}right)^n,
end{eqnarray*}

which shows that $T_{2n+1}>tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n+1}<tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all odd $m$, and hence for all $m$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    8 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$

Claim:



The sign of the $k$-th term is precisely $(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}$, excep for $k=1$ and $k=2$. To be precise, setting
$$f(1):=frac12,
qquad
f(2):=frac14,
qquadtext{ and }qquad
f(k):=frac{(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}}{2^k}
quad
text{ for all }k>2,$$

yields the desired sum. This means that for all $mgeq1$ the partial sum $S_m:=sum_{k=1}^mf(k)$ satisfies
$$begin{array}{ccc}
S_m<0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)>0,\
S_m>0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)<0.tag{1}
end{array}$$



Proof:



This is clear for $m=1$ and $m=2$. To simplify $(1)$ note that $S_mneq0.9$ for all $m$ because the denominator of $S_m$ is a power of $2$ whereas $0.9=frac{3}{10}$. So $(1)$ is equivalent to
$$S_m<0.9qquadiffqquad f(m+1)>0.$$
Moreover, the sign of $f(m+1)$ can be expressed simply in terms of $m$ because
$$f(m+1)>0
quadiffquad
(-1)^{lfloortfrac{m+2}{2}rfloor}>0
quadiffquad
m+2equiv2,3pmod{4}.$$

For $m>2$, to get rid of the first two irregular terms in the partial sum $S_m$, set $T_m:=sum_{k=3}^mf(k)$. Then $T_m=S_m-tfrac34$ and $(1)$ now simplifies to
$$T_m>frac{3}{20}qquadiffqquad mequiv0,1pmod{4}.$$
Writing out the first few summands of $T_m$ shows that if $m$ is even we can group the summands into pairs to get a simple geometric sum, for which it is easy to find a closed form:
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n}&=&left(frac{1}{8}+frac{1}{16}right)
-left(frac{1}{32}+frac{1}{64}right)
+left(frac{1}{128}+frac{1}{256}right)
-cdots\
&=&sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^kleft(frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{4}right)
=frac{3}{4}sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^k\
&=&frac{3}{4}frac{tfrac{1}{4}-left(-tfrac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}}{1-left(-tfrac14right)}
=frac{3}{20}left(1-left(-frac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}right)\
&=&frac{3}{20}+frac{3}{5}left(-frac{1}{4}right)^ntag{2}
end{eqnarray*}

In particular, this last expression shows that $T_{2n}>frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n}<frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all even $m$. For odd $m$, we simply add one summand to $(2)$ to get
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n+1}&=&
frac{3}{20}+frac35left(-frac{1}{4}right)^n+frac{(-1)^{2n+1}}{2^{2n+1}}\
&=&frac{3}{20}+(-1)^nfrac35left(frac{1}{4}right)^n-frac12left(frac{1}{4}right)^n\
&=&frac{3}{20}+left((-1)^nfrac35-frac12right)left(frac{1}{4}right)^n,
end{eqnarray*}

which shows that $T_{2n+1}>tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n+1}<tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all odd $m$, and hence for all $m$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    8 hours ago
















1












1








1





$begingroup$

Claim:



The sign of the $k$-th term is precisely $(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}$, excep for $k=1$ and $k=2$. To be precise, setting
$$f(1):=frac12,
qquad
f(2):=frac14,
qquadtext{ and }qquad
f(k):=frac{(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}}{2^k}
quad
text{ for all }k>2,$$

yields the desired sum. This means that for all $mgeq1$ the partial sum $S_m:=sum_{k=1}^mf(k)$ satisfies
$$begin{array}{ccc}
S_m<0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)>0,\
S_m>0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)<0.tag{1}
end{array}$$



Proof:



This is clear for $m=1$ and $m=2$. To simplify $(1)$ note that $S_mneq0.9$ for all $m$ because the denominator of $S_m$ is a power of $2$ whereas $0.9=frac{3}{10}$. So $(1)$ is equivalent to
$$S_m<0.9qquadiffqquad f(m+1)>0.$$
Moreover, the sign of $f(m+1)$ can be expressed simply in terms of $m$ because
$$f(m+1)>0
quadiffquad
(-1)^{lfloortfrac{m+2}{2}rfloor}>0
quadiffquad
m+2equiv2,3pmod{4}.$$

For $m>2$, to get rid of the first two irregular terms in the partial sum $S_m$, set $T_m:=sum_{k=3}^mf(k)$. Then $T_m=S_m-tfrac34$ and $(1)$ now simplifies to
$$T_m>frac{3}{20}qquadiffqquad mequiv0,1pmod{4}.$$
Writing out the first few summands of $T_m$ shows that if $m$ is even we can group the summands into pairs to get a simple geometric sum, for which it is easy to find a closed form:
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n}&=&left(frac{1}{8}+frac{1}{16}right)
-left(frac{1}{32}+frac{1}{64}right)
+left(frac{1}{128}+frac{1}{256}right)
-cdots\
&=&sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^kleft(frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{4}right)
=frac{3}{4}sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^k\
&=&frac{3}{4}frac{tfrac{1}{4}-left(-tfrac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}}{1-left(-tfrac14right)}
=frac{3}{20}left(1-left(-frac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}right)\
&=&frac{3}{20}+frac{3}{5}left(-frac{1}{4}right)^ntag{2}
end{eqnarray*}

In particular, this last expression shows that $T_{2n}>frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n}<frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all even $m$. For odd $m$, we simply add one summand to $(2)$ to get
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n+1}&=&
frac{3}{20}+frac35left(-frac{1}{4}right)^n+frac{(-1)^{2n+1}}{2^{2n+1}}\
&=&frac{3}{20}+(-1)^nfrac35left(frac{1}{4}right)^n-frac12left(frac{1}{4}right)^n\
&=&frac{3}{20}+left((-1)^nfrac35-frac12right)left(frac{1}{4}right)^n,
end{eqnarray*}

which shows that $T_{2n+1}>tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n+1}<tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all odd $m$, and hence for all $m$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Claim:



The sign of the $k$-th term is precisely $(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}$, excep for $k=1$ and $k=2$. To be precise, setting
$$f(1):=frac12,
qquad
f(2):=frac14,
qquadtext{ and }qquad
f(k):=frac{(-1)^{lfloortfrac{k+1}{2}rfloor}}{2^k}
quad
text{ for all }k>2,$$

yields the desired sum. This means that for all $mgeq1$ the partial sum $S_m:=sum_{k=1}^mf(k)$ satisfies
$$begin{array}{ccc}
S_m<0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)>0,\
S_m>0.9quad&implies&quad f(m+1)<0.tag{1}
end{array}$$



Proof:



This is clear for $m=1$ and $m=2$. To simplify $(1)$ note that $S_mneq0.9$ for all $m$ because the denominator of $S_m$ is a power of $2$ whereas $0.9=frac{3}{10}$. So $(1)$ is equivalent to
$$S_m<0.9qquadiffqquad f(m+1)>0.$$
Moreover, the sign of $f(m+1)$ can be expressed simply in terms of $m$ because
$$f(m+1)>0
quadiffquad
(-1)^{lfloortfrac{m+2}{2}rfloor}>0
quadiffquad
m+2equiv2,3pmod{4}.$$

For $m>2$, to get rid of the first two irregular terms in the partial sum $S_m$, set $T_m:=sum_{k=3}^mf(k)$. Then $T_m=S_m-tfrac34$ and $(1)$ now simplifies to
$$T_m>frac{3}{20}qquadiffqquad mequiv0,1pmod{4}.$$
Writing out the first few summands of $T_m$ shows that if $m$ is even we can group the summands into pairs to get a simple geometric sum, for which it is easy to find a closed form:
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n}&=&left(frac{1}{8}+frac{1}{16}right)
-left(frac{1}{32}+frac{1}{64}right)
+left(frac{1}{128}+frac{1}{256}right)
-cdots\
&=&sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^kleft(frac{1}{2}+frac{1}{4}right)
=frac{3}{4}sum_{k=1}^nleft(-frac{1}{4}right)^k\
&=&frac{3}{4}frac{tfrac{1}{4}-left(-tfrac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}}{1-left(-tfrac14right)}
=frac{3}{20}left(1-left(-frac{1}{4}right)^{n+1}right)\
&=&frac{3}{20}+frac{3}{5}left(-frac{1}{4}right)^ntag{2}
end{eqnarray*}

In particular, this last expression shows that $T_{2n}>frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n}<frac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all even $m$. For odd $m$, we simply add one summand to $(2)$ to get
begin{eqnarray*}
T_{2n+1}&=&
frac{3}{20}+frac35left(-frac{1}{4}right)^n+frac{(-1)^{2n+1}}{2^{2n+1}}\
&=&frac{3}{20}+(-1)^nfrac35left(frac{1}{4}right)^n-frac12left(frac{1}{4}right)^n\
&=&frac{3}{20}+left((-1)^nfrac35-frac12right)left(frac{1}{4}right)^n,
end{eqnarray*}

which shows that $T_{2n+1}>tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is even and $T_{2n+1}<tfrac{3}{20}$ if $n$ is odd. This proves $(1)$ for all odd $m$, and hence for all $m$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 23 hours ago

























answered yesterday









ServaesServaes

27.5k34098




27.5k34098












  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    8 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday












  • $begingroup$
    Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – dataphile
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
    $endgroup$
    – Calum Gilhooley
    8 hours ago


















$begingroup$
@CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday






$begingroup$
@CalumGilhooley Your input is much appreciated! I think that your expression is equivalent to what I wrote; note that I start the series at $k=1$.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday














$begingroup$
Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday




$begingroup$
Also, it is quite late here, if you have more suggested edits I will look at them tomorrow. I also hope to finish the proof for the odd partial sums; I don't think it's difficult, it's just too cumbersome for me at the moment.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday












$begingroup$
@CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday




$begingroup$
@CalumGilhooley You are right, I have corrected the double/split use of $m$. I hope it makes sense now.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
yesterday












$begingroup$
My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




$begingroup$
My goodness, this is fantastic @Servaes! Please share the proof for odd m when you have a chance. I would love to see it. Thanks
$endgroup$
– dataphile
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
8 hours ago






$begingroup$
Sorry about the delay! If only I'd had more sleep - even strong coffee didn't help today - I've been too tired to think about maths all day, and only started to wake up at 11 p.m.! I still seem to see the need for some edits, but I may still be too tired to think straight; so I won't venture any suggestions now. I'll have another look at it tomorrow. This comment will self-destruct in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
$endgroup$
– Calum Gilhooley
8 hours ago




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3139360%2fhow-to-use-a-conditional-statement-in-an-infinite-series-to-approach-a-specific%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Nidaros erkebispedøme

Birsay

Was Woodrow Wilson really a Liberal?Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?Founding Fathers...