Re: Simplification with Integers assumption

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg74897] Re: Simplification with Integers assumption
• From: "did" <didier.oslo at hotmail.com>
• Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:20:00 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <eunqc2\$7ic\$1@smc.vnet.net><euqnn4\$89o\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```On Apr 2, 12:59 pm, "David W.Cantrell" <DWCantr... at sigmaxi.net> wrote:
> But your post did lead me to find something surprising. Suppose we fix n as
> a positive integer -- say, 3 for example:
>
> In[6]:= Sum[3/((2p)!(3 - 2p)!), {p, 1, Infinity}]
>
> results in nothing but warning messages and gibberish. OTOH, if we replace
> Infinity with a large integer -- say, 100 or 1000 -- Mathematica has no
> trouble giving the correct answer.
>
> In[7]:= Sum[3/((2p)!(3 - 2p)!), {p, 1, 1000}]
>
> Out[7]= 3/2
>
> Of course, that answer is _also_ the correct one for the infinite sum at
> which Mathematica balked. Why couldn't Mathematica do the infinite sum? Is
> this problem fixed in the development version perhaps?

Hi,

Thanks for the reply.
Actually it's not only infinite sums that have problems.
Try, for example,
Sum[3/((2p)!(3 - 2p)!), {p, 1, 10000000000000000000000}]
and you'll get some nonsensical answers too.

Did

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Plot a simple function
• Next by Date: Re: NDSolve can't solve a complex ODE correctly?
• Previous by thread: Re: Simplification with Integers assumption
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Simplification with Integers assumption