| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 19:04:35 IST
|
|
|
|
Time wounds all heels |
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 19:06:07 IST
|
|
|
bhatt sir isnt it sigma(1 to n) where n tends to infinity
|
Nitwit Blubber Odment Tweak
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 19:49:40 IST
|
|
|
i dont get why it shouldnt be rational  Bcos the summation is done over rational terms only right? Then why shouldnt the sum be rational only?
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 20:29:39 IST
|
|
|
What is given is a non recurring,non terminating decimal . Hence not a rational number.
Note that sum of infinite rational terms need not be rational.
ex = 1 +x +x2 /2! ....
is obviously not rational even for rational values of x.
That solves the problem!
|
Destiny is what you make
|
this reply: 25 points
(with 5 
in 5 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 20:38:54 IST
|
|
|
Is that so mr bhatt but i think its only lim n----> infinity n not infinity itself so its still a finite number of terms making it rational 
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 21:13:49 IST
|
|
|
nice work amaron.
I mixed it up a little, it is of course a sum to infinite terms.
If you write it down it looks like 0.100100001..., this is a non-terminating, non-recurring decimal representation, which is typical of an irrational number
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 4 points
(with 0 
in 2 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 21:49:34 IST
|
|
|
oh yes nice :)
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Mar 2008 22:05:01 IST
|
|
|
I simplified the question a bit. The original one had a +ve integer k instead of 10.
Then too the result hold, for in base k, it will read 0.100100001...
I thought it was a lovely concept to bring here
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|