4

I am trying to find an argument or counterexample for the following proposition.

Let $ (a_i)_{i=1}^{n} $ be a finite sequence of real numbers. Then, $ \sum \limits_{i=1}^{n}a_i $ is well defined.

By "well-defined" I mean that the sum exists and equals to the same real number no matter in which order you sum up the terms.

My guess is to use induction, but is this correct?

Thanks.

  • 1
    What do you mean by "well-defined" in this context? Usually, for something to be "well-defined", you have to provide some particular definition to begin with. – Eric Wofsey Oct 08 '16 at 05:53
  • By "well-defined" I mean that the sum exists and equals to the same real number no matter in which order you sum up the terms.

    I edited the post. Thanks!

    – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 06:04

5 Answers5

4

Sorry but your 'proof' is wrong. Your $P(1)$ is a statement, not a number, so it is meaningless to write "$P(1) = a_1$". Secondly, by writing "$\sum_{i=1}^{k+1} a_i = \sum_{i=1}^{k} a_i + a_{k+1}$" you are already assuming that "$\sum_{i=1}^{k+1} a_i$" is well-defined, otherwise it is invalid to write it anywhere! Thirdly, a finite sequence can have length zero. [Edit: You have only fixed the first error.]

In fact depending on your underlying logic system, the proof that such recursive definitions give well-defined results can be anywhere from simple to highly non-trivial. See this post for a sketch of the proof.

Here is what the intuitive proof be in the case of the summation notation.


Take any $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and any sequence $(a_k)_{k \in [1..m]}$ from $\mathbb{R}$.

Let $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \cases{ 0 & if $n=0$ \\ \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_k + a_n & if $n > 0$}$, for each $n \in [0..m]$.

[Note that I have given the definition in the above format to make it clear that it is unambiguous how to interpret the summation notation, since the cases are disjoint and one of the cases must hold for any $n \in [0..m]$. Also, the definition must be interpreted as defining "$\sum_{k=1}^n a_k$" only when the relevant sub-expressions are well-defined. For example, "$\sum_{k=1}^0 a_k$" is well-defined, and hence "$\sum_{k=1}^0 a_k + a_1$" also is, which implies that "$\sum_{k=1}^1 a_k$" is well-defined. And so on.]

Now we proceed by induction to prove that "$\sum_{k=1}^n a_k$" is well-defined for any $n \in [0..m]$.

Let $P(n)$ be the assertion that if $n \in [0..m]$ then "$\sum_{k=1}^n a_k$" is a well-defined real number.

Then $P(0)$ is true because "$\sum_{k=1}^0 a_k$" is well-defined since it is defined as "$0$", which is a well-defined real number.

Given any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $P(n)$ is true:

  If $n+1 \in [0..m]$:

    "$\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} a_k$" is defined as "$\sum_{k=1}^{(n+1)-1} a_k + a_{n+1}$" since $n+1 > 0$.

    Also "$\sum_{k=1}^{(n+1)-1} a_k + a_{n+1}$" reduces to "$\sum_{k=1}^n a_k + a_{n+1}$".

    And "$\sum_{k=1}^n a_k$" is a well-defined real number because $P(n)$ is true and $n \in [0..m]$.

    Thus "$\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} a_k$" is a well-defined real number because $\mathbb{R}$ is closed under addition.

  Thus $P(n+1)$ is true.

Therefore by induction $P(n)$ is true for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$.

Thus "$\sum_{k=1}^n a_k$" is a well-defined real number for any $n \in [0..m]$.


Note that it is important to include as part of the induction predicate that the sum is a real number, otherwise you cannot perform the induction step! Also, note that the induction predicate contains the cut-off condition that $n \in [0..m]$. This is in general how we can prove statements for (arbitrary-length) finite sequences using induction.

Now I'll sketch the proof that the summation is independent of order of the terms. To state it in full generality, we first have to define permutations on finite sequences:

We say that a function $σ$ is a permutation on a set $S$ iff $σ$ is a bijection from $S$ to $S$.

And then the theorem would be:

Take any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and sequence $(a_k)_{k \in [1..n]}$.

Then $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \sum_{k=1}^n a_{σ(k)}$ for any permutation $σ$ on $[1..n]$.

The rough idea of the proof I'm going to give is that we first get rid of the cases of $n = 0$ and $n = 1$, and we permute the first $(n-1)$ terms in such a way that we can swap the last two terms to get the right term at the end, and then we permute the first $(n-1)$ terms again to get the desired permutation. The first permutation we use can be a simple one, such as just swapping the $σ(n)$-th term to the $(n-1)$-th position. Both the first and the last permutations do not change the value by the induction. The swap of the last two terms come from associativity and commutativity of addition on reals.

Normally, the above paragraph is sufficient for an informal proof, but below is the sketch of the rigorous proof. Suffice to say that it is worth knowing how it is done but not worth doing it every time. $ \def\l{\left} \def\r{\right} \def\less{\smallsetminus} \def\on{\restriction} $


Let $P(n)$ be the assertion that for any sequence $(a_k)_{k \in [1..n]}$ we have $\sum_{k=1}^n a_{σ(k)} = \sum_{k=1}^n a_k$ for any permutation $σ$ on $[1..n]$.

Then $P(0)$ and $P(1)$ are trivially true.

Take any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $n > 1$.

By induction we can assume that $P(n-1)$ is true. [I will mark each use of this with a "$\ast$".]

If $σ(n) = n$:

  $σ \on [1..n-1]$ ($σ$ with domain restricted to $[1..n-1]$) is a permutation on $[1..n-1]$.

  Thus $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_k + a_n \overset{\ast}= \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_{σ(k)} + a_n = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_{σ(k)} + a_{σ(n)} = \sum_{k=1}^n a_{σ(k)}$.

If $σ(n) \ne n$:

  Let $c \in [1..n-1]$ such that $σ(c) = n$.

  Let $τ$ be the swap $(\ n-1 \quad σ(n)\ )$ on $[1..n-1]$. [This is the first permutation.]

  [Precisely, let $τ(i) = \cases{ σ(n) & if $i = n-1$ \\ n-1 & if $i = σ(n)$ \\ i & if $i \in [1..n-2] \less \{σ(n)\}$ }$, for each $i \in [1..n-1]$.]

  Then $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_k + a_n \overset{\ast}= \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_{τ(k)} + a_n = \l( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} a_{τ(k)} + a_{σ(n)} \r) + a_n$

    $= \l( \sum_{k=1}^{n-2} a_{τ(k)} + a_n \r) + a_{σ(n)} = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} b_k + a_{σ(n)}$

      where $b_k = \cases{ a_{τ(k)} & if $k \in [1..n-2]$ \\ a_n & if $k = n-1$ }$, for each $k \in [1..n-1]$.

  Note that $\langle τ(k) \rangle_{k \in [1..n-2]} \cdot \langle n \rangle$ is a permutation of $[1..n] \less \{σ(n)\}$.

  Note also that $\langle σ(k) \rangle_{k \in [1..n-1]}$ is a permutation of $[1..n] \less \{σ(n)\}$.

  Thus $b$ is a bijection from $[1..n-1]$ to $\{ a_{σ(k)} : k \in [1..n-1] \}$.

  Thus let $ρ$ be a permutation on $[1..n-1]$ such that $b_{ρ(k)} = a_{σ(k)}$ for each $k \in [1..n-1]$.

  [Precisely, let $ρ(k) = b^{-1}(a_{σ(k)})$, for each $k \in [1..n-1]$.]

  Then $\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} b_k + a_{σ(n)} \overset{\ast}= \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} b_{ρ(k)} + a_{σ(n)} = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} a_{σ(k)} + a_{σ(n)} = \sum_{k=1}^n a_{σ(k)}$.

Therefore $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \sum_{k=1}^n a_{σ(k)}$.

user21820
  • 60,745
  • Yes. I completely agree that $ P(1) = a_1 $ is meaningless I edited that. Thanks. But I do not agree with the second point. It is just the sum and you can write it and then check that it is well-defined. Could you suggest your proof? – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 05:59
  • 2
    @G.T.: I've edited to include the full intuitive proof that the summation is well-defined. If you think it is a trivial matter, consider the following definition. Let $f : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that $f(0) = 0$ and $f(1) = 1$ and $3f(n) = f(n+1) + f(n-2)$. Now is $f$ is well-defined? (The answer is "no".) What if I change the last condition to $3f(n) = f(n+1) + f(n-1)$? (The answer is "yes".) – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 06:17
  • 1
    @G.T.: So you cannot just say "it is just the sum" because it is not obvious that it is well-defined. This may seem like a pedantic point, but it's not, because otherwise we could equally well say that "the sum is obviously independent of order of adding" and claim it is a proof. Do you get my point? I saw your edited question only after I finished editing my answer, but I suggest you first understand my point first because otherwise the answer to your edited question will just go over your head. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 06:22
  • Thank you so much for taking time to explain. I am exactly right now trying to understand how you incorporated in your proof the idea that order of the summation does not affect the value. – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 06:31
  • 1
    @G.T.: If you mean "how to incorporate into my proof ...", it's not going to be easy.. I'll give you the proof, but first please confirm that you grasp the point about well-definedness. In particular, to even define summation we have to fix the order of adding, which in my definition goes from left to right (with $a_1$ on the left and $a_n$ on the right). – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 06:37
  • It take time for to fully and completely understand your answer. Let me think for a while. Thanks! – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 06:42
  • 1
    @G.T.: Sure! In case it is not clear, my post shows the easiest way to define the summation notation rigorously, but does not prove some of the properties, such as $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \sum_{k=1}^n a_{n+1-k}$. You can prove each such property individually by induction using the (above-given) definition of the summation. (Try this one!) Alternatively, you can prove the more general property that $\sum_{k=1}^n a_k = \sum_{k=1}^n a_{σ(k)}$ where $σ$ is a permutation on $[1..n]$, but then you would first need to define permutations. Feel free to ask further anytime! – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 06:44
  • You are giving me so much more insight than I expected. Now I am completely sure in my decision to shift from being economist to become mathematician. But this is off-topic here. I read your proof and I completely understood your point. On my answer @Greg Martin comments that I need to show that the summation is immune to the order in which you sum up the terms. You expressed willingness of giving the proof of that. Could you please do that? – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 06:54
  • One final clarification: When you say that it is true for any $ n \in N $ Do not you need to say that it is true for any $ n \in [0,m] \subseteq N $ and since $m$ was arbitrary it is true for any $n$? Because you are restricting the summation on some m elements. Is this correct? – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 07:04
  • 2
    @G.T.: Your last question first; $P$ was defined for any natural number, not just those in the range $[0..m]$. Note that $P(n)$ is of the form "if $n \in [0..m]$ then ...", but in my hurry I forgot to prove the right thing. An edit is in order! I'll provide a sketch of the proof in a while. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 07:08
  • I don't see any proof or $P$ in the question or its edit history. What's happening here? – JiK Oct 08 '16 at 07:27
  • @G.T.: You're welcome to mathematics! =) I assume you know what bijections are? Also, the notation I used for the swap is called cycle-notation. Note that if you literally follow the proof on a real example recursively, you will find that it does only swaps on adjacent terms. In general, a lot of theorems involving permutations can be reduced to swaps, and sometimes adjacent swaps as here. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 09:45
  • @user21820 I still see no proof or any mention of $P(1)$ in the question. You lose me in the first sentence of this answer. It looks like an answer to another question. – JiK Oct 08 '16 at 11:38
  • @JiK: Oh you're talking about the first sentence; I was referring to the asker's attempt, which he posted as an answer below before I answered the question. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 11:44
2

Yes, it is indeed correct, and the proof is via induction on $n$ as you suspect (and a good exercise). Note that by contrast, not every infinite sum of real numbers is defined.

Noah Schweber
  • 260,658
2

Proof. (Towards Induction on n)

Let $ P(k) := ~"\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}a_i $ is well-defined"

$ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{1}a_i = a_1 $ which is well-defined because it is real number. Thus, $ P(1) $ is true.

Suppose $ P(k) $ is true. Then, $ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}a_i ~\text{is well-defined and suppose it is some} A \in R $

Since $ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{k+1}a_i=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k}a_i +a_{k+1} $ then $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k+1}a_i=A+a_{k+1} $ which is well-defined since any sum of two real numbers is still real number.

Hence, $ P(k+1) $ is true as well, which implies that $ P(n) $ is true for any $ n \in N $.

This finishes the proof.

  • It's not really clear in the OP, but perhaps part of what needs to be proved is that the value of the sum is independent of the order in which the terms are added; if so, this proof wouldn't accomplish that. – Greg Martin Oct 08 '16 at 05:57
  • @GregMartin What is OP? Could you edit it or write new proof that accomplishes that. That is exactly what i wanted to prove. That the sum is independent of the order of summation. Thanks in advance! – Theorist Reflectionist Oct 08 '16 at 06:09
  • You proved that the sum indeed gives a real number if the terms are added in the exact order. The question, however, asks for a proof that it is moreover independent of the order in which the terms are added. Which of course isn't that hard if you use the induction assumption that $P(j)$ is true for all $j$ up to $k$. Then you can split the sum in two (being assured that this doesn't change the value due to the assumption), and then use associativity and commutativity to get the additional element in between. – celtschk Oct 08 '16 at 10:19
  • I don't understand this answer. Are you genuinly trying to answer this question or do you want feedback regarding the correctness of the above text? If it is the latter please delete this answer and add its contents to the question clarifying that you want feedback on it. Currently trying to read the most voted answer is really odd because it mentions a proof by induction that cannot be seen in the question (nor its edit history). Answers shouldn't rely on the existince of other answers to be comprehensible. – Bakuriu Oct 08 '16 at 11:14
  • @Bakuriu: If that is so confusing, I suggest G.T. remove this answer and I'll delete the first paragraph of mine, since this answer is incorrect anyway. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 11:48
  • @celtschk: No this proof does not prove anything; see my answer. The whole point is that to even specify what it means to "add in different order", you already need to define summation of finite sequences of arbitrary length, which requires a recursive definition of the sort I gave in my post, and then one has to use that particular definition when proving that order does not matter. It is no trivial task. Ellipses ("...") is not allowed if you want full mathematical rigour. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 11:50
  • @user21820: I don't see a single ellipsis in this answer. – celtschk Oct 08 '16 at 11:57
  • @celtschk: I didn't say this answer uses ellipses, but it is just wrong for the reasons I already gave in detail in my post. I just mentioned ellipses because people may think that one can use them in a proof, and then they will complain that my proof is unnecessary. If you can't see why this answer is wrong, then you don't fully understand the theorem or the proof. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 12:07
  • @user21820: He doesn't prove that order does not matter; I explicitly said that in my comment. He does proof that the recursive definition as such is well defined (always gives a real number), and he directly uses the recursive definition in his proof. – celtschk Oct 08 '16 at 12:32
  • @celtschk: You clearly didn't read my post. I stated explicitly what is wrong with his proof!! There is in fact another error that I didn't state, because his induction hypothesis does not say that the sum is a real number. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 12:35
  • I looked at the very beginning, and found that it cannot refer to this version of the proof, as the very first sentence (after "it is wrong" already isn't true for the proof as it currently is in this answer. I indeed didn't read on, because it obviously did not apply on the proof as it currently is. Which is the only thing I commented on. – celtschk Oct 08 '16 at 12:39
  • @celtschk: You said in your comment: You proved that the sum indeed gives a real number if the terms are added in the exact order. This is false, which is what I've been trying to get across to you since so many comments ago. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 13:12
  • @user21820: So what is the recursive definition doing, if not adding the terms in the exact order? – celtschk Oct 08 '16 at 13:19
  • I suggest you read carefully my post here as well as the post I linked to. If you care about mathematical rigour, the validity of the recursive definition is not something you can just hand-wave. In my linked post I briefly sketch the proof of the recursion theorem, which you ought to be familiar with. It is the same here; one cannot claim to rigorously use the notation for summation without first defining it. Secondly, I already said that there are other errors, which you still have not admitted. – user21820 Oct 08 '16 at 14:25
1

Yes, the real numbers form an Abelian group under addition. The result you mention is a general property of Abelian groups (even of commutative semigroups), and it can be formally proved (indeed by induction on the number of terms) from associativity ($3$ terms) and commutativity ($2$ terms) of addition alone.

-1

Let $\left(a_i\right)_1^n\in\mathbb{R}$ and $A_k=\sum_{i=1}^k a_i$, then:

Addition is binary relation: $\forall a,b\in\mathbb R:a+b\in\mathbb R$
Addition is comutative: $\forall a,b\in\mathbb R:a+b=b+a$

$A_1=\sum_{i=1}^1a_i=a_1\in\mathbb R$;
$A_2=\sum_{i=1}^2a_i=a_1+a_2=A_1+a_2=a_2+A_1\in\mathbb R$;
$A_3=\sum_{i=1}^3a_i=a_1+a_2+a_3=A_2+a_3=a_3+A_2\in\mathbb R$;
$\qquad\vdots$
$A_{k}=\sum_{i=1}^ka_i=A_{k-1}+a_k=a_k+A_{k-1}\in\mathbb R$.

Crowley
  • 99