lichess.org
Donate

0 + 0 + ... = ?

@ Chess-Phantom15 said in #30:
> My wallet balance + House = 0
That's actually better than most people. Just see all the people who practically own less than nothing, being tied to debts...
So being in balance of course isn't the best, but it's an pretty accomplishment nontheless.
The answer to the title problem is 0, as @m011235 explained (although the last but one term
in his sequence of equalities should be "lim{n->+inf}0" instead of "lim{n->0}0").
This result has nothing common with multiplication 0 by infinity, which remains undefined.
Maths is at its absolute least interesting when it's arguing over definitions.
#1
Infinite set of elements is never empty. Element can be anything like 0, 1, 2.
A set is empty when count of elements present in it is 0.
That summation (0+0+...), that tends to one!
@Akbar2thegreat said in #36:
> #1
> Infinite set of elements is never empty. Element can be anything like 0, 1, 2.

0 + 0 + ... is not a set. It's an infinite series:
0 + 0 + ... = ∑_(n=1)^∞ 0

One could also write:
∑_(n=1)^∞ a_n,
where a_n = 0 ∀n ∈ Z+

> A set is empty when count of elements present in it is 0.

True, but irrelevant in this context.

> That summation (0+0+...), that tends to one!

Not at all. As others in this thread (m011235 and marcin2) have already pointed out the value of the titular infinite series is simply 0.
0 + 0 + ... = ∑_(n=1)^∞ 0 = 0

The above infinite series is convergent, since the sequence of its partial sums S_N converges. The N-th partial sum (N ∈ Z+, where Z+ = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...} denotes the set of all positive integers) of our infinite series is defined as follows:

S_N = ∑_(n=1)^N 0

It is trivially easy to see that ∀N ∈ Z+ ("for all N element of the positive integers") the following holds: S_N = 0
(zero added to zero finitely many times, in this case N-1 times, will always yields zero).
So all partial sums are zero:

S_1 = 0
S_2 = 0 + 0 = 0
S_3 = 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
S_4 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
...

The partial sums S_N of an infinite series are ordered (which is important in the general case) and there are countably infinitely many of them. They thus form an infinite sequence (S_N)_N∈Z+. If said sequence converges, then the value it converges to is unique and is called the limit of the sequence:
lim_(N –> ∞) S_N

If the series of partial sums (S_N)_N∈Z+ converges, then the corresponding infinite series ∑_(n=1)^∞ 0 is said to be convergent and has a value equal to the limit of the sequence of its partial sums lim_(N –> ∞) S_N.

Because all S_N are zero |S_N - 0| = 0 ∀N ∈ Z+ and thus you can always (trivially) find an arbitrarily small (but positive) ε such that |S_N - 0| < ε for all N ≥ K, some finite positive integer. In fact, in this special case K can even be equal to 1. This constitutes convergence.
Thus the limit of (S_N)_N∈Z+ is simply equal to zero:
lim_(N –> ∞) S_N = 0

And finally the value of the corresponding infinite series is equal to zero:
0 + 0 + 0 + ... = ∑_(n=1)^∞ 0 = lim_(N –> ∞) S_N = 0
I’m slightly surprised that no one used chess to answer the original question.
If you play in a tournament and lose the first two games in a row, you have 0+0=0 points (out of 2). It will remain 0 until you break your losing streak (which is not infinite, hopefully).

0-0= something completely different, however. It means your king steps two squares to the side.
No, actually 0-0 means you've lost two games in a row (besides castling). 0+0 doesn't mean anything in chess.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.