Sum of reciprocals of numbers with certain terms omitted
I know that the harmonic series $1 + frac12 + frac13 + frac14 + cdots$ diverges. I also know that the sum of the inverse of prime numbers $frac12 + frac13 + frac15 + frac17 + frac1{11} + cdots$ diverges too, even if really slowly since it's $O(log log n)$.
But I think I read that if we consider the numbers whose decimal representation does not have a certain digit (say, 7) and sum the inverse of these numbers, the sum is finite (usually between 19 and 20, it depends from the missing digit). Does anybody know the result, and some way to prove that the sum is finite?
sequences-and-series convergence
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
add a comment |
I know that the harmonic series $1 + frac12 + frac13 + frac14 + cdots$ diverges. I also know that the sum of the inverse of prime numbers $frac12 + frac13 + frac15 + frac17 + frac1{11} + cdots$ diverges too, even if really slowly since it's $O(log log n)$.
But I think I read that if we consider the numbers whose decimal representation does not have a certain digit (say, 7) and sum the inverse of these numbers, the sum is finite (usually between 19 and 20, it depends from the missing digit). Does anybody know the result, and some way to prove that the sum is finite?
sequences-and-series convergence
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
3
You might want to rephrase your question as "Sum of Harmonic Series with certain terms omitted". It might be easier to immediately understand what you mean =) But +1 for me; this is a good question that this site needs.
– Justin L.
Jul 21 '10 at 21:03
What a nice question. I would be really interested in the exact values of the Kempner Series...
– Max Muller
Apr 5 '11 at 15:12
@mau : A related (but different) question is this one.
– Watson
Nov 10 '16 at 19:57
1
@Watson: really nice!
– mau
Nov 10 '16 at 20:21
add a comment |
I know that the harmonic series $1 + frac12 + frac13 + frac14 + cdots$ diverges. I also know that the sum of the inverse of prime numbers $frac12 + frac13 + frac15 + frac17 + frac1{11} + cdots$ diverges too, even if really slowly since it's $O(log log n)$.
But I think I read that if we consider the numbers whose decimal representation does not have a certain digit (say, 7) and sum the inverse of these numbers, the sum is finite (usually between 19 and 20, it depends from the missing digit). Does anybody know the result, and some way to prove that the sum is finite?
sequences-and-series convergence
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
I know that the harmonic series $1 + frac12 + frac13 + frac14 + cdots$ diverges. I also know that the sum of the inverse of prime numbers $frac12 + frac13 + frac15 + frac17 + frac1{11} + cdots$ diverges too, even if really slowly since it's $O(log log n)$.
But I think I read that if we consider the numbers whose decimal representation does not have a certain digit (say, 7) and sum the inverse of these numbers, the sum is finite (usually between 19 and 20, it depends from the missing digit). Does anybody know the result, and some way to prove that the sum is finite?
sequences-and-series convergence
sequences-and-series convergence
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
edited Jul 9 '15 at 20:54
Olivier Oloa
107k17175293
107k17175293
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
asked Jul 21 '10 at 20:57
mau
6,97523263
6,97523263
3
You might want to rephrase your question as "Sum of Harmonic Series with certain terms omitted". It might be easier to immediately understand what you mean =) But +1 for me; this is a good question that this site needs.
– Justin L.
Jul 21 '10 at 21:03
What a nice question. I would be really interested in the exact values of the Kempner Series...
– Max Muller
Apr 5 '11 at 15:12
@mau : A related (but different) question is this one.
– Watson
Nov 10 '16 at 19:57
1
@Watson: really nice!
– mau
Nov 10 '16 at 20:21
add a comment |
3
You might want to rephrase your question as "Sum of Harmonic Series with certain terms omitted". It might be easier to immediately understand what you mean =) But +1 for me; this is a good question that this site needs.
– Justin L.
Jul 21 '10 at 21:03
What a nice question. I would be really interested in the exact values of the Kempner Series...
– Max Muller
Apr 5 '11 at 15:12
@mau : A related (but different) question is this one.
– Watson
Nov 10 '16 at 19:57
1
@Watson: really nice!
– mau
Nov 10 '16 at 20:21
3
3
You might want to rephrase your question as "Sum of Harmonic Series with certain terms omitted". It might be easier to immediately understand what you mean =) But +1 for me; this is a good question that this site needs.
– Justin L.
Jul 21 '10 at 21:03
You might want to rephrase your question as "Sum of Harmonic Series with certain terms omitted". It might be easier to immediately understand what you mean =) But +1 for me; this is a good question that this site needs.
– Justin L.
Jul 21 '10 at 21:03
What a nice question. I would be really interested in the exact values of the Kempner Series...
– Max Muller
Apr 5 '11 at 15:12
What a nice question. I would be really interested in the exact values of the Kempner Series...
– Max Muller
Apr 5 '11 at 15:12
@mau : A related (but different) question is this one.
– Watson
Nov 10 '16 at 19:57
@mau : A related (but different) question is this one.
– Watson
Nov 10 '16 at 19:57
1
1
@Watson: really nice!
– mau
Nov 10 '16 at 20:21
@Watson: really nice!
– mau
Nov 10 '16 at 20:21
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
EDIT: This might be what you're looking for. Found it from looking at the source below. They're called Kempner series.
An article here (and cited below) says that one Dr. Kempner proved in 1914 that the series 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + ..., with any term that has a 9 in the denominator removed, is convergent (though he doesn't say what it converges to in the introductory paragraph). The article goes on to generalize the result.
A Curious Convergent Series
Frank Irwin
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1916), pp. 149-152
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2974352
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
add a comment |
It is not very surprising that the sum is finite, since numbers without a 7 (or any other digit) get rarer and rarer as the number of digits increases.
Here's a proof.
Let $S$ be the harmonic series with all terms whose denominator contains the digit $k$ removed. We can write $S =S_1 + S_2 + S_3 + ldots$, where $S_i$ is the sum of all terms whose denominator contains exactly $i$ digits, all different from $k$.
Now, the number of $i$-digit numbers that do not contain the digit $k$ is $8cdot9^{i-1}$ (there are $8$ choices for the first digit, excluding $0$ and $k$, and $9$ choices for the other digits). [Well, if $k=0$ there are $9$ choices for the first digit, but the proof still works.] So there are $8cdot9^{i-1}$ numbers in the sum $S_i$.
Now each number in $S_i$ is of the form $frac1a$, where $a$ is an $i$-digit number. So $a geq 10^{i-1}$, which implies $frac1a leq frac1{10^{i-1}}$.
Therefore $S_i leq 8cdotdfrac{9^{i-1} }{10^{i-1}} = 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$.
So $S= sum S_i leq sum 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$
which is a geometric series of ratio $frac9{10} < 1$, which converges. Since $S$ is a positive series bounded above by a converging series, $S$ converges.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f387%2fsum-of-reciprocals-of-numbers-with-certain-terms-omitted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
EDIT: This might be what you're looking for. Found it from looking at the source below. They're called Kempner series.
An article here (and cited below) says that one Dr. Kempner proved in 1914 that the series 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + ..., with any term that has a 9 in the denominator removed, is convergent (though he doesn't say what it converges to in the introductory paragraph). The article goes on to generalize the result.
A Curious Convergent Series
Frank Irwin
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1916), pp. 149-152
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2974352
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
add a comment |
EDIT: This might be what you're looking for. Found it from looking at the source below. They're called Kempner series.
An article here (and cited below) says that one Dr. Kempner proved in 1914 that the series 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + ..., with any term that has a 9 in the denominator removed, is convergent (though he doesn't say what it converges to in the introductory paragraph). The article goes on to generalize the result.
A Curious Convergent Series
Frank Irwin
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1916), pp. 149-152
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2974352
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
add a comment |
EDIT: This might be what you're looking for. Found it from looking at the source below. They're called Kempner series.
An article here (and cited below) says that one Dr. Kempner proved in 1914 that the series 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + ..., with any term that has a 9 in the denominator removed, is convergent (though he doesn't say what it converges to in the introductory paragraph). The article goes on to generalize the result.
A Curious Convergent Series
Frank Irwin
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1916), pp. 149-152
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2974352
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
EDIT: This might be what you're looking for. Found it from looking at the source below. They're called Kempner series.
An article here (and cited below) says that one Dr. Kempner proved in 1914 that the series 1+ 1/2 + 1/3 + ..., with any term that has a 9 in the denominator removed, is convergent (though he doesn't say what it converges to in the introductory paragraph). The article goes on to generalize the result.
A Curious Convergent Series
Frank Irwin
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 23, No. 5 (May, 1916), pp. 149-152
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2974352
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:06
Jan Gorzny
782914
782914
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
add a comment |
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
thank you - my memory was a bit fallacious on the actual sums, and totally fallacious with respect to the name ok Kempner :-)
– mau
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
Wow, this is a very interesting result
– Casebash
Jul 21 '10 at 21:12
add a comment |
It is not very surprising that the sum is finite, since numbers without a 7 (or any other digit) get rarer and rarer as the number of digits increases.
Here's a proof.
Let $S$ be the harmonic series with all terms whose denominator contains the digit $k$ removed. We can write $S =S_1 + S_2 + S_3 + ldots$, where $S_i$ is the sum of all terms whose denominator contains exactly $i$ digits, all different from $k$.
Now, the number of $i$-digit numbers that do not contain the digit $k$ is $8cdot9^{i-1}$ (there are $8$ choices for the first digit, excluding $0$ and $k$, and $9$ choices for the other digits). [Well, if $k=0$ there are $9$ choices for the first digit, but the proof still works.] So there are $8cdot9^{i-1}$ numbers in the sum $S_i$.
Now each number in $S_i$ is of the form $frac1a$, where $a$ is an $i$-digit number. So $a geq 10^{i-1}$, which implies $frac1a leq frac1{10^{i-1}}$.
Therefore $S_i leq 8cdotdfrac{9^{i-1} }{10^{i-1}} = 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$.
So $S= sum S_i leq sum 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$
which is a geometric series of ratio $frac9{10} < 1$, which converges. Since $S$ is a positive series bounded above by a converging series, $S$ converges.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
add a comment |
It is not very surprising that the sum is finite, since numbers without a 7 (or any other digit) get rarer and rarer as the number of digits increases.
Here's a proof.
Let $S$ be the harmonic series with all terms whose denominator contains the digit $k$ removed. We can write $S =S_1 + S_2 + S_3 + ldots$, where $S_i$ is the sum of all terms whose denominator contains exactly $i$ digits, all different from $k$.
Now, the number of $i$-digit numbers that do not contain the digit $k$ is $8cdot9^{i-1}$ (there are $8$ choices for the first digit, excluding $0$ and $k$, and $9$ choices for the other digits). [Well, if $k=0$ there are $9$ choices for the first digit, but the proof still works.] So there are $8cdot9^{i-1}$ numbers in the sum $S_i$.
Now each number in $S_i$ is of the form $frac1a$, where $a$ is an $i$-digit number. So $a geq 10^{i-1}$, which implies $frac1a leq frac1{10^{i-1}}$.
Therefore $S_i leq 8cdotdfrac{9^{i-1} }{10^{i-1}} = 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$.
So $S= sum S_i leq sum 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$
which is a geometric series of ratio $frac9{10} < 1$, which converges. Since $S$ is a positive series bounded above by a converging series, $S$ converges.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
add a comment |
It is not very surprising that the sum is finite, since numbers without a 7 (or any other digit) get rarer and rarer as the number of digits increases.
Here's a proof.
Let $S$ be the harmonic series with all terms whose denominator contains the digit $k$ removed. We can write $S =S_1 + S_2 + S_3 + ldots$, where $S_i$ is the sum of all terms whose denominator contains exactly $i$ digits, all different from $k$.
Now, the number of $i$-digit numbers that do not contain the digit $k$ is $8cdot9^{i-1}$ (there are $8$ choices for the first digit, excluding $0$ and $k$, and $9$ choices for the other digits). [Well, if $k=0$ there are $9$ choices for the first digit, but the proof still works.] So there are $8cdot9^{i-1}$ numbers in the sum $S_i$.
Now each number in $S_i$ is of the form $frac1a$, where $a$ is an $i$-digit number. So $a geq 10^{i-1}$, which implies $frac1a leq frac1{10^{i-1}}$.
Therefore $S_i leq 8cdotdfrac{9^{i-1} }{10^{i-1}} = 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$.
So $S= sum S_i leq sum 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$
which is a geometric series of ratio $frac9{10} < 1$, which converges. Since $S$ is a positive series bounded above by a converging series, $S$ converges.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
It is not very surprising that the sum is finite, since numbers without a 7 (or any other digit) get rarer and rarer as the number of digits increases.
Here's a proof.
Let $S$ be the harmonic series with all terms whose denominator contains the digit $k$ removed. We can write $S =S_1 + S_2 + S_3 + ldots$, where $S_i$ is the sum of all terms whose denominator contains exactly $i$ digits, all different from $k$.
Now, the number of $i$-digit numbers that do not contain the digit $k$ is $8cdot9^{i-1}$ (there are $8$ choices for the first digit, excluding $0$ and $k$, and $9$ choices for the other digits). [Well, if $k=0$ there are $9$ choices for the first digit, but the proof still works.] So there are $8cdot9^{i-1}$ numbers in the sum $S_i$.
Now each number in $S_i$ is of the form $frac1a$, where $a$ is an $i$-digit number. So $a geq 10^{i-1}$, which implies $frac1a leq frac1{10^{i-1}}$.
Therefore $S_i leq 8cdotdfrac{9^{i-1} }{10^{i-1}} = 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$.
So $S= sum S_i leq sum 8cdotleft(frac9{10}right)^{i-1}$
which is a geometric series of ratio $frac9{10} < 1$, which converges. Since $S$ is a positive series bounded above by a converging series, $S$ converges.
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
edited Mar 13 '13 at 22:30
P..
13.4k22348
13.4k22348
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
answered Jul 21 '10 at 21:35
user115
1,015813
1,015813
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
add a comment |
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
+1: Great Answer!
– Daniel Allen Langdon
Dec 23 '11 at 16:00
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f387%2fsum-of-reciprocals-of-numbers-with-certain-terms-omitted%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
You might want to rephrase your question as "Sum of Harmonic Series with certain terms omitted". It might be easier to immediately understand what you mean =) But +1 for me; this is a good question that this site needs.
– Justin L.
Jul 21 '10 at 21:03
What a nice question. I would be really interested in the exact values of the Kempner Series...
– Max Muller
Apr 5 '11 at 15:12
@mau : A related (but different) question is this one.
– Watson
Nov 10 '16 at 19:57
1
@Watson: really nice!
– mau
Nov 10 '16 at 20:21