'Limits' in Maths

In an earlier blog on why the number 1 is not a prime number, I’d quoted these lines from Steven Strogatz’s The Joy of x:

“It pulls back the curtain on how maths is sometimes done. The naïve view is that we make our definitions, set them in stone, then deduce whatever theorems happen to follow from them. Not so. That would be too passive. We’re in charge and can alter definitions as we please.”

 

I found another such instance of this “(we) can alter definitions as we please” power in Jordan Ellenberg’s book, How not to be Wrong. It involves a topic everyone encounters at school maths – what is the value of the infinite series:

0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + 0.0009 + … (the ellipsis means infinite terms)

Common sense tells the sum keeps getting closer to 1 (0.9, then 0.99, then 0.999 and so on). Such examples led mathematicians to a deeper question:

“What is the numerical value of an infinite sum?”

 

This is not just a silly, only-mathematicians-would-care query. It is foundational to calculus, a topic that is critical in physics and so many other real-world topics. In fact, this was a nagging question in the calculus that Newton had created – Newton himself didn’t bother to answer it - he was only interested in calculus as a tool to explain gravity, not in the rigour of the underlying maths.

 

The great mathematician, Cauchy, introduced the notion of “limit” to calculus via his great innovation in maths:

“What is the numerical value of an infinite sum? It doesn’t have one – until we give it one.”

This sounds crazy. How can you just decide (set) the answer? Isn’t maths about calculating the answer?

 

Yes, that is true. But remember, Cauchy was only talking of special cases. Like the 0.9 series above. Where the answer is (1) getting closer to a certain value the more terms you add; and (2) does not get further away from the value of the previous step when you add more terms. In such cases, Cauchy announced that you can define the sum as the value to which it is getting close to. In the 0.9 series example, you define the sum as 1.

“And then he (Cauchy) worked very hard to prove that committing oneself to his definition didn’t cause horrible contradictions to pop up elsewhere. By the time this labour was done, he’d constructed a framework that made Newton’s calculus completely rigorous.”

 

While Cauchy’s approach has worked for over 2 centuries without ever creating any “horrible contradictions”, it violates common sense on a different front. Common sense tells us the sum of the 0.9 series is obviously 0.999…, i.e., endless 9’s after the decimal. And here we have Cauchy telling us the answer is 1. How can two numbers that are obviously different (0.999… v/s 1) be the same? The mind-blowing answer - Cauchy was telling us that “the uniqueness of the decimal expression” needed to “go out of the window”!

 

However weird it may sound, mathematicians agree with Cauchy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

Instinctively, we think touch is based on contact. Not entirely true, explains Ed Yong in Immense World – there’s a more important aspect than contact: “These incredible feats are possible through movement. If you rest a fingertip upon a surface, you can get only a limited idea of its features. But as soon you’re allowed to move, everything changes. Hardness becomes apparent with a press. Textures resolve at a stroke.” As you run your fingers over a surface, they hit the tiny peaks and troughs and set off vibrations in the mechanoreceptors at their tips.   At the tip of its snout, the star-nosed mole has many pairs of hairless appendages. It uses them to touch things around itself. Alive or dead? Food or ignore? It does these movements at an insane speed. In the time it takes to blink our eyes, the star-nosed mole can probe, identify and swallow its food. “Light may be the fastest thing in the universe, but light sensors have their limits, and the star-nosed mole’s sense of
Read more

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Image
Coming up with biting and witty retorts. It’s something we dream of, but rarely manage to pull off. Worse, the more we stew over the offending remark, the more likely we are to come up with that dream retort, as Calvin ruefully points out: During our last holiday at the Taj Resort, seeing my wife carrying towels to our poolside chairs, one of the kids there mistook her for a member of the staff and asked for a towel. When my wife narrated this to us, I did not imagine that my 8 yo daughter would come up with her own retort. But a day later, my daughter recapped the incident, an incident that didn’t even involve her in the first place , and said, “You know what I’d have told that kid who asked for the towel?”. And without waiting for an answer, she told us anyway: “I don’t work here. I too am a luxury person who is living at this resort. Go get your own towel.” We were highly amused by the phrase she had coined: “luxury person”. It certainly captures the kind of holid
Read more