Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I didn't watch the numberphile video and just read this.

Can someone explain to me why I am allowed to add a padding zero at the start without taking it out at the end?

By adding it, I am giving the sum an offset, and I can kind of understand why adding zero is not a big deal, but they reasoned:

Then S1 + S1 = (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) + (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...)

= (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) + (0 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...)

= (1 + 0) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) ....

= 1 + 0 + 0 ... = 1

But I might as well leave the leading Zero out and argue that:

Then S1 + S1 = (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) + (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...)

= (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) + (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...)

= (1 + 1) + ( -1 - 1) + (1 + 1) ....

= (2 - 2) + (2 - 2) + (2 - 2)... = 0



That's the point! Using the algebra from the article:

(1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) = 0 + (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...)

and therefore:

(1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) = (0 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...)

And as they're mathematically the same (again, in the article's algebra), why not replace one with the other?

The problem is that when you do, and you sum the two infinite series using the "zipping" method (as in the numberphile video) the two equations equate to different results.


Alright, got it. Thanks!


> Can someone explain to me why I am allowed to add a padding zero at the start without taking it out at the end?

Because there is no "end". These are infinite series.

> But I might as well leave the leading Zero out and argue that:

Yes, exactly, that's the whole point. You cannot manipulate non-convergent series in this way if you want consistent results.


Cheers, thanks!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: