Download PDF

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts

Big O notation wikipedia , lookup

History of Grandi's series wikipedia , lookup

Location arithmetic wikipedia , lookup

Factorization wikipedia , lookup

Proofs of Fermat's little theorem wikipedia , lookup

Elementary arithmetic wikipedia , lookup

Arithmetic wikipedia , lookup

Mathematics of radio engineering wikipedia , lookup

Division by zero wikipedia , lookup

Addition wikipedia , lookup

Transcript
empty sum∗
pahio†
2013-03-22 2:19:41
The empty sum is such a borderline case of sum where the number of the
addends is zero, i.e. the set of the addends is an empty set.
• One may think that the zeroth multiple 0a of a ring element a is the empty
sum; it can spring up by adding in the ring two multiples whose integer
coefficients are opposite numbers:
(−n)a+na = (−n+n)a = 0a
This empty sum equals the additive identity 0 of the ring, since the multiple (−n)a is defined to be
(−a)+(−a)+ . . . +(−a)
{z
}
|
n copies
• In using the sigma notation
n
X
f (i)
(1)
f (i).
(2)
i=m
one sometimes sees a case
m−1
X
i=m
It must be an empty sum, because in
m
X
f (i)
(3)
i=m
the number of addends is clearly one and therefore in (2) the number is
zero. Thus the value of (2) may be defined to be 0.
∗ hEmptySumi
created: h2013-03-2i by: hpahioi version: h41433i Privacy setting: h1i
hTopici h97D99i h05A19i h00A05i
† This text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0.
You can reuse this document or portions thereof only if you do so under terms that are
compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.
1
Note. The sum (1) is not defined when n is less than m−1, but if one would
want that the usual rule
n
X
k
X
f (i) +
i=m
f (i) =
i=n+1
k
X
f (i)
(4)
i=m
would be true also in such a cases, then one has to define
n
X
m−1
X
f (i) = −
i=m
f (i)
(n < m−1),
i=n+1
because by (4) one could calculate
0 = −
m−1
X
i=n+1
f (i) +
m−1
X
i=n+1
f (i) =
n
X
i=m
2
f (i) +
m−1
X
i=n+1
f (i) =
m−1
X
i=m
f (i).