Timeline for Summation form of improper integrals
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10 at 19:48 | comment | added | PrincessEev | In the very first equation, $n$ is just a generic parameter (perhaps limited to a certain domain). You can replace it throughout the equality with an appropriate value, and then the new equality would still hold. | |
| May 10 at 10:55 | vote | accept | zeynel | ||
| May 10 at 10:55 | comment | added | zeynel | Thanks for the great answer. It covers all the questions that I had. But while reading your answer I noticed something else. In the first integral we have the summation index $n\in\mathbb{N}$ but we don't have the summation sign. We introduce the summation sign in the next expression. So does $n$ have meaning in the first expression? Or is that a provisional expression? Thanks again. | |
| May 9 at 5:55 | history | answered | PrincessEev | CC BY-SA 4.0 |