Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    So you have an "undefined" ratio say. But in order to define a geometric series, you need to know "a", and "r". If you are given these values you can generate any geometric sequence, these values are what defines the sequence. How would you define the sequence 0, 0, 0 .... ? You would define it differently from every other geometric sequence, because r could be any real number. So is it still geometric?

    I understand your reasoning, but I am still unconvinced as you can't get away from the issue of dividing by zero. Interesting discussion though

    EDIT: 0, 0, 0 ... is arithmetic in my eyes.
    k, k , k, k, ...

    doesn't matter who's eyes you have
    that is an ARITHMETIC AND GEOMETRIC series for ALL K
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    So you have an "undefined" ratio say. But in order to define a geometric series, you need to know "a", and "r". If you are given these values you can generate any geometric sequence, these values are what defines the sequence. How would you define the sequence 0, 0, 0 .... ? You would define it differently from every other geometric sequence, because r could be any real number. So is it still geometric?

    I understand your reasoning, but I am still unconvinced as you can't get away from the issue of dividing by zero. Interesting discussion though

    EDIT: 0, 0, 0 ... is arithmetic in my eyes.
    But suppose I said that r=0.5, and a=0. Then the sequence is defined so that issue becomes resolved right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CancerousNumber)
    k, k , k, k, ...

    doesn't matter who's eyes you have
    that is an ARITHMETIC AND GEOMETRIC series for ALL K
    r = \dfrac{k}{k}

    let k = 0

    r = \dfrac{0}{0}

    Where now...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    But suppose I said that r=0.5, and a=0. Then the sequence is defined so that issue becomes resolved right?
    But then let r = 1 and a = 0. Is this the same sequence or a different sequence? Can there be more than one definition of the same sequence?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    r = \dfrac{k}{k}

    let k = 0

    r = \dfrac{0}{0}

    Where now...
    But you are assuming that we should define k first and then r, in which case we can't figure out r. But if you define r first and then choose k=0, you are still left with same sequence, except now its defined.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    But you are assuming that we should define k first and then r, in which case we can't figure out r. But if you define r first and then choose k=0, you are still left with same sequence, except now its defined.
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    But then let r = 1 and a = 0. Is this the same sequence or a different sequence? Can there be more than one definition of the same sequence?
    I'll say again what I said here...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    But then let r = 1 and a = 0. Is this the same sequence or a different sequence? Can there be more than one definition of the same sequence?
    Why not? Why should sequences be uniquely defined?

    Edit: I'm trying to think of examples of sequences that are identical but are defined differently. I understand why I can't find one, but I can't think of a rigorous mathematical explanation. Don't like to hand wave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    r = \dfrac{k}{k}

    let k = 0

    r = \dfrac{0}{0}

    Where now...
    that's a ridiculous argument

    k/k = 1 except when k = 0, where k is undefined

    but lim k->0 for k/k, by lopitals rule = 1/1 = 1

    I have no idea how that is relevant to what I'm saying but whatever
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Point to me where it says a sequence that is arithmetic is not allowed to be geometric
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    So you have an "undefined" ratio say. But in order to define a geometric series, you need to know "a", and "r". If you are given these values you can generate any geometric sequence, these values are what defines the sequence. How would you define the sequence 0, 0, 0 .... ? You would define it differently from every other geometric sequence, because r could be any real number. So is it still geometric?

    I understand your reasoning, but I am still unconvinced as you can't get away from the issue of dividing by zero. Interesting discussion though

    EDIT: 0, 0, 0 ... is arithmetic in my eyes.
    I don't think the fact that it is an arithmetic series alone prevents it from being a geometric series.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    But then let r = 1 and a = 0. Is this the same sequence or a different sequence? Can there be more than one definition of the same sequence?
    Yes that is the same sequence.

    Yes there can be more then one definition of a sequence.

    Consider the sequence a=1=r with

    U=ar^(3N+2)

    V=ar^(N)

    Where N is the term number.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CancerousNumber)
    Point to me where it says a sequence that is arithmetic is not allowed to be geometric
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    I don't think the fact that it is an arithmetic series alone prevents it from being a geometric series.
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    Yes that is the same sequence.

    Yes there can be more then one definition of a sequence.

    Consider the sequence a=1=r with

    U=ar^(3N+2)

    V=ar^(N)

    Where N is the term number.
    I asked the question on StackExchange (a professional mathematics forum).

    http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...etric-sequence

    There are divided opinions even here! Thought you might like to watch the discussion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizard54142)
    I asked the question on StackExchange (a professional mathematics forum).

    http://math.stackexchange.com/questi...etric-sequence

    There are divided opinions even here! Thought you might like to watch the discussion.
    I really like the discussion! Thanks for taking the time to post the question there.
    I knew it would be a tricky question to answer!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So I think we've technically solved the problem guys. The result is that we cannot definitively say whether it is a geometric series due to the ambiguity in the definition of a geometric series. I don't like that though. It bothers me that there exists (even a little bit) of ambiguity in the subject that should be completely free of all ambiguity.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    So I think we've technically solved the problem guys. The result is that we cannot definitively say whether it is a geometric series due to the ambiguity in the definition of a geometric series. I don't like that though. It bothers me that there exists (even a little bit) of ambiguity in the subject that should be completely free of all ambiguity.
    Yh it seems as though there are quite a few good ideas there. Quite interesting indeed. May have to sign up soon. That site looks quite interesting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    Yh it seems as though there are quite a few good ideas there. Quite interesting indeed. May have to sign up soon. That site looks quite interesting.
    I've been there a few times before. They actually put up a lot of really interesting problems there!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    I've been there a few times before. They actually put up a lot of really interesting problems there!
    A lot of the stuff on the site seems a bit beyond me tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    A lot of the stuff on the site seems a bit beyond me tbh.
    Same for me, but occasionally when I'm browsing the internet I come across some good problems on Stack.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xin Xang)
    A lot of the stuff on the site seems a bit beyond me tbh.
    Everything on the site is beyond all of us, like I said it is for professionals
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrimeLime)
    I really like the discussion! Thanks for taking the time to post the question there.
    I knew it would be a tricky question to answer!
    No problem
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 14, 2015

2,482

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.