Ttyjukl

Is there a name for this algorithm to calculate the concentration of a mixture of two solutions containing the same solute?

Freedom of speech and where it applies

Why did the HMS Bounty go back to a time when whales are already rare?

What does chmod -u do?

Why do compilers behave differently when static_cast(ing) a function to void*?

Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government?

What was the exact wording from Ivanhoe of this advice on how to free yourself from slavery?

How to implement a feedback to keep the DC gain at zero for this conceptual passive filter?

Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?

Where did Heinlein say "Once you get to Earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System"?

How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?

How do you respond to a colleague from another team when they're wrongly expecting that you'll help them?

What is the evidence for the "tyranny of the majority problem" in a direct democracy context?

A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?

What prevents the use of a multi-segment ILS for non-straight approaches?

Create all possible words using a set or letters

GraphicsGrid with a Label for each Column and Row

Creepy dinosaur pc game identification

Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note?

Is it improper etiquette to ask your opponent what his/her rating is before the game?

Approximating irrational number to rational number

WiFi Thermostat, No C Terminal on Furnace

250 Floor Tower

Is it safe to use olive oil to clean the ear wax?

How can we generalize the fact of finite dimensional vector space to an infinte dimensional case?

$k[x]$-module and cyclic module over a finite dimensional vector spaceSubspace of a finite dimensional space is finite dimensionalIf V is an infinite-dimensional vector space, and S is an infinite-dimensional subspace of V, must the dimension of V/S be finite? ExplainWhy is an infinite dimensional space so different than a finite dimensional one?base for finite dimensional vector space is not infinite dimensional vector space?Any finite-dimensional vector space is the dual space of anotherHaving Trouble Understanding Meaning Of A Finite-Dimensional Vector SpaceProve that “Every subspaces of a finite-dimensional vector space is finite-dimensional”Ring as a finite dimensional Vector space over a field KQuestion regarding basis and dimension

1

$begingroup$

I am reading vector space from Friedberg. There in the last section they told about infinite dimensional vector space but there is not sufficient contents. Now my question is why can't we define infinite sum? If this is the case then can anyone please tell me the difference between infinite sum in the series in analysis and here? How infinite sum in series is defined and not here?

I know I'm going wrong somewhere, please help me to find it out.

linear-algebra vector-spaces

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Infinite sums in analysis are defined as limits of the sequence of finite partial sums. In general there is no limit in vector spaces.
  $endgroup$
  – Jens Schwaiger
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Jens Schwaiger please elaborate, I cant understand about how can we define infinite sum by limit of a sequence? And also what are the bounds that we can't do in vector spaces?
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user639336 What you are asking is not at all related to the dimension of vector spaces.
  $endgroup$
  – amsmath
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

I am reading vector space from Friedberg. There in the last section they told about infinite dimensional vector space but there is not sufficient contents. Now my question is why can't we define infinite sum? If this is the case then can anyone please tell me the difference between infinite sum in the series in analysis and here? How infinite sum in series is defined and not here?

I know I'm going wrong somewhere, please help me to find it out.

linear-algebra vector-spaces

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Infinite sums in analysis are defined as limits of the sequence of finite partial sums. In general there is no limit in vector spaces.
  $endgroup$
  – Jens Schwaiger
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @Jens Schwaiger please elaborate, I cant understand about how can we define infinite sum by limit of a sequence? And also what are the bounds that we can't do in vector spaces?
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user639336 What you are asking is not at all related to the dimension of vector spaces.
  $endgroup$
  – amsmath
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

I am reading vector space from Friedberg. There in the last section they told about infinite dimensional vector space but there is not sufficient contents. Now my question is why can't we define infinite sum? If this is the case then can anyone please tell me the difference between infinite sum in the series in analysis and here? How infinite sum in series is defined and not here?

I know I'm going wrong somewhere, please help me to find it out.

linear-algebra vector-spaces

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

share|cite|improve this question

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

edited 3 hours ago

Rócherz

2,9863821

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

asked 3 hours ago

user639336user639336

92

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

6

$begingroup$

It's not that one can't define an infinite sum, the issue is that in a space with a binary operation an infinite sum does not automatically make sense. You can't define an infinite sum solely in terms of the finite sum. You need to construct the sequence of partial sums, which then needs to converge.

However, in order to define convergence, you need something like a topology, and we're no longer talking simply about vector spaces anymore: we've moved on to topological vector spaces. So one could arguably say that in a plain vector space, which explicitly isn't given a topology, you can't define an infinite sum.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir you are saying topological vector spaces, are they define infinite as a limit of a sequence or anything else? But sir whenever it's about infinite sum of a series we write something lile a1e1+a2e2+........ doesn't it seems like ordinary binary operation? Secondly I read somewhere we can add if all elements are zero except finitely many. Please help sir about clearing my ideas.
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir somehow are you want to mean topological vector spaces as functional analysis?
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user639 If all are zero but finitely many, that will converge in any topology so we don't need an explicit one. Just writing the infinite sum in general doesn't tell you which element of the vector space you're talking about. What if I wrote $1+1+1+cdots$? This gives the sequence of partial sums $1,2,3,ldots$, and this doesn't converge. Would you say that that was a silly example? We can't distinguish this from any other example without a topology. In fact you could define a topology where this actually does converge.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user Topological vector spaces certainly do occur frequently in functional analysis, but they are also studied outside of that subject.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir this means the only essence of topology is laid on infinite dimensional vector space? I mean in finite one the sum is defined, but in the infinite one the infinite sum is'nt.
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

0

$begingroup$

In analysis you probably defined infinte sum as follows. Let us say that $a_n$ is some sequance of real numbers. We define partial sums $S_n$ as follows.
$$S_1 = a_1 $$
$$S_2 = a_1 + a_2 $$
$$...$$
$$S_n = a_1 + a_2 + ... + a_n$$
Now we define:
$$S = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{a_n} := lim_{n to infty}{S_n} $$
The point of this is that you see that it is good to have a concept of limit (convergance) to define infinte sum. Limit involves, intuitivley speaking, that one things get closer to another; and that requaries notion of distance. If you have a vector space only, you still do not have a way to mesure length of a vector.

So it would be good if you had some way to mesure length of a vector and you can do that by norm. One way to create a norm on your vector space is to induce it with a inner (scalar) product. Then you can define that sequance of vectors $v_n$ converges to some vector $w$ if sequnace of norms $||v_n||$ of vector converges to norm $||w||$. Then you will be able to define infinte sum of vectors because you have notion of convergance.

I kept it brief, but if you do have any question, feel free to ask.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  It doesn't actually require a notion of distance. You can define infinite sums in topological vector spaces that are not metrizable, like $mathbb R^{mathbb R} $ in the product topology.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel You can even infinite sums in topological (additive) groups.
  $endgroup$
  – amsmath
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel Thanks for comment. I tried to be pedagogical. However from the question asked I estimate that op is not looking for that kind of answer you propose (altrough it is correct). I estimate that he is probably undergrad in math or someone who just encountered vector spaces and mathematical analysis (and is still not able to have general overview), so I kept my answer informative and simple. If you think that op is looking for some other answer feel free to post your answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Thom
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Sure, I actually already did.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel Great.
  $endgroup$
  – Thom
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

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
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160037%2fhow-can-we-generalize-the-fact-of-finite-dimensional-vector-space-to-an-infinte%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

6

$begingroup$

It's not that one can't define an infinite sum, the issue is that in a space with a binary operation an infinite sum does not automatically make sense. You can't define an infinite sum solely in terms of the finite sum. You need to construct the sequence of partial sums, which then needs to converge.

However, in order to define convergence, you need something like a topology, and we're no longer talking simply about vector spaces anymore: we've moved on to topological vector spaces. So one could arguably say that in a plain vector space, which explicitly isn't given a topology, you can't define an infinite sum.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir you are saying topological vector spaces, are they define infinite as a limit of a sequence or anything else? But sir whenever it's about infinite sum of a series we write something lile a1e1+a2e2+........ doesn't it seems like ordinary binary operation? Secondly I read somewhere we can add if all elements are zero except finitely many. Please help sir about clearing my ideas.
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir somehow are you want to mean topological vector spaces as functional analysis?
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user639 If all are zero but finitely many, that will converge in any topology so we don't need an explicit one. Just writing the infinite sum in general doesn't tell you which element of the vector space you're talking about. What if I wrote $1+1+1+cdots$? This gives the sequence of partial sums $1,2,3,ldots$, and this doesn't converge. Would you say that that was a silly example? We can't distinguish this from any other example without a topology. In fact you could define a topology where this actually does converge.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user Topological vector spaces certainly do occur frequently in functional analysis, but they are also studied outside of that subject.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir this means the only essence of topology is laid on infinite dimensional vector space? I mean in finite one the sum is defined, but in the infinite one the infinite sum is'nt.
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

6

$begingroup$

It's not that one can't define an infinite sum, the issue is that in a space with a binary operation an infinite sum does not automatically make sense. You can't define an infinite sum solely in terms of the finite sum. You need to construct the sequence of partial sums, which then needs to converge.

However, in order to define convergence, you need something like a topology, and we're no longer talking simply about vector spaces anymore: we've moved on to topological vector spaces. So one could arguably say that in a plain vector space, which explicitly isn't given a topology, you can't define an infinite sum.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir you are saying topological vector spaces, are they define infinite as a limit of a sequence or anything else? But sir whenever it's about infinite sum of a series we write something lile a1e1+a2e2+........ doesn't it seems like ordinary binary operation? Secondly I read somewhere we can add if all elements are zero except finitely many. Please help sir about clearing my ideas.
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir somehow are you want to mean topological vector spaces as functional analysis?
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user639 If all are zero but finitely many, that will converge in any topology so we don't need an explicit one. Just writing the infinite sum in general doesn't tell you which element of the vector space you're talking about. What if I wrote $1+1+1+cdots$? This gives the sequence of partial sums $1,2,3,ldots$, and this doesn't converge. Would you say that that was a silly example? We can't distinguish this from any other example without a topology. In fact you could define a topology where this actually does converge.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @user Topological vector spaces certainly do occur frequently in functional analysis, but they are also studied outside of that subject.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  sir this means the only essence of topology is laid on infinite dimensional vector space? I mean in finite one the sum is defined, but in the infinite one the infinite sum is'nt.
  $endgroup$
  – user639336
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

$begingroup$

It's not that one can't define an infinite sum, the issue is that in a space with a binary operation an infinite sum does not automatically make sense. You can't define an infinite sum solely in terms of the finite sum. You need to construct the sequence of partial sums, which then needs to converge.

However, in order to define convergence, you need something like a topology, and we're no longer talking simply about vector spaces anymore: we've moved on to topological vector spaces. So one could arguably say that in a plain vector space, which explicitly isn't given a topology, you can't define an infinite sum.

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

answered 3 hours ago

Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39k63769

0

$begingroup$

In analysis you probably defined infinte sum as follows. Let us say that $a_n$ is some sequance of real numbers. We define partial sums $S_n$ as follows.
$$S_1 = a_1 $$
$$S_2 = a_1 + a_2 $$
$$...$$
$$S_n = a_1 + a_2 + ... + a_n$$
Now we define:
$$S = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{a_n} := lim_{n to infty}{S_n} $$
The point of this is that you see that it is good to have a concept of limit (convergance) to define infinte sum. Limit involves, intuitivley speaking, that one things get closer to another; and that requaries notion of distance. If you have a vector space only, you still do not have a way to mesure length of a vector.

So it would be good if you had some way to mesure length of a vector and you can do that by norm. One way to create a norm on your vector space is to induce it with a inner (scalar) product. Then you can define that sequance of vectors $v_n$ converges to some vector $w$ if sequnace of norms $||v_n||$ of vector converges to norm $||w||$. Then you will be able to define infinte sum of vectors because you have notion of convergance.

I kept it brief, but if you do have any question, feel free to ask.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  It doesn't actually require a notion of distance. You can define infinite sums in topological vector spaces that are not metrizable, like $mathbb R^{mathbb R} $ in the product topology.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel You can even infinite sums in topological (additive) groups.
  $endgroup$
  – amsmath
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel Thanks for comment. I tried to be pedagogical. However from the question asked I estimate that op is not looking for that kind of answer you propose (altrough it is correct). I estimate that he is probably undergrad in math or someone who just encountered vector spaces and mathematical analysis (and is still not able to have general overview), so I kept my answer informative and simple. If you think that op is looking for some other answer feel free to post your answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Thom
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Sure, I actually already did.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel Great.
  $endgroup$
  – Thom
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

0

$begingroup$

In analysis you probably defined infinte sum as follows. Let us say that $a_n$ is some sequance of real numbers. We define partial sums $S_n$ as follows.
$$S_1 = a_1 $$
$$S_2 = a_1 + a_2 $$
$$...$$
$$S_n = a_1 + a_2 + ... + a_n$$
Now we define:
$$S = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{a_n} := lim_{n to infty}{S_n} $$
The point of this is that you see that it is good to have a concept of limit (convergance) to define infinte sum. Limit involves, intuitivley speaking, that one things get closer to another; and that requaries notion of distance. If you have a vector space only, you still do not have a way to mesure length of a vector.

So it would be good if you had some way to mesure length of a vector and you can do that by norm. One way to create a norm on your vector space is to induce it with a inner (scalar) product. Then you can define that sequance of vectors $v_n$ converges to some vector $w$ if sequnace of norms $||v_n||$ of vector converges to norm $||w||$. Then you will be able to define infinte sum of vectors because you have notion of convergance.

I kept it brief, but if you do have any question, feel free to ask.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  It doesn't actually require a notion of distance. You can define infinite sums in topological vector spaces that are not metrizable, like $mathbb R^{mathbb R} $ in the product topology.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel You can even infinite sums in topological (additive) groups.
  $endgroup$
  – amsmath
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel Thanks for comment. I tried to be pedagogical. However from the question asked I estimate that op is not looking for that kind of answer you propose (altrough it is correct). I estimate that he is probably undergrad in math or someone who just encountered vector spaces and mathematical analysis (and is still not able to have general overview), so I kept my answer informative and simple. If you think that op is looking for some other answer feel free to post your answer.
  $endgroup$
  – Thom
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Sure, I actually already did.
  $endgroup$
  – Matt Samuel
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @MattSamuel Great.
  $endgroup$
  – Thom
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

$begingroup$

In analysis you probably defined infinte sum as follows. Let us say that $a_n$ is some sequance of real numbers. We define partial sums $S_n$ as follows.
$$S_1 = a_1 $$
$$S_2 = a_1 + a_2 $$
$$...$$
$$S_n = a_1 + a_2 + ... + a_n$$
Now we define:
$$S = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{a_n} := lim_{n to infty}{S_n} $$
The point of this is that you see that it is good to have a concept of limit (convergance) to define infinte sum. Limit involves, intuitivley speaking, that one things get closer to another; and that requaries notion of distance. If you have a vector space only, you still do not have a way to mesure length of a vector.

So it would be good if you had some way to mesure length of a vector and you can do that by norm. One way to create a norm on your vector space is to induce it with a inner (scalar) product. Then you can define that sequance of vectors $v_n$ converges to some vector $w$ if sequnace of norms $||v_n||$ of vector converges to norm $||w||$. Then you will be able to define infinte sum of vectors because you have notion of convergance.

I kept it brief, but if you do have any question, feel free to ask.

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111

$endgroup$

share|cite|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111

answered 3 hours ago

ThomThom

361111