Vague and Potentially Confusing uses of Terminology

edit

I find this ambiguous and confusing. I believe the problem partly relates to the established terminological difference between convergence of an infinite series and convergence of an infinite sequence, the former being no more than an instance of the latter using as "the sequence" the partial sums of "the series". This can work OK, but then, in the current wording of this article, the sentence

"If the sequence of the Cesàro means is convergent, the series is said to be Cesàro summable."

(my italics) seems to me very unclear. Which is "the series"?

Coming fresh to this terminology, and reading this sentence and what precedes it, one would be entitled to conclude that the infinite series

 

is called "Cesàro summable" when the sequence {cn}, as defined a little above, converges in the usual sense of an infinite sequence. However, referring to the page on Cesàro summation, it seems instead that it is rather a series

 

(whose partial sums -- rather than whose terms -- are the sequence {an}) that would properly be described as "Cesàro summable" in this case that {cn} converges as an infinite sequence.

Can someone who is sure of established terminology -- regarding sequence/series and Cesàro summation/convergence-of-Cesàro means etc -- help here? (Or if the established terminology either does not exist or exists but is inherently confusing, then instead provide a note to warn us of this and help guide us through the minefield?)

Thanks in advance for any thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.170.175 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to clean cesaro-mean and cesaro-sum in the expected way. (I hope I didn't introduce more mess as has been before ...) --Gotti 05:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talkcontribs)
To 83.217.170.175.  After four years, I found your remark concerning the (imo: at least) unclear way 'Cesàro summability of a series' is described in Cesàro mean.   I agree completely with you.
The revisions by Druseltal2005 (17 April May 2013) are insufficient; and he introduces the - never seen - label 'Cesàro mean of a sequence' (for: 'the limit of the Cesàro means of a sequence' or 'the Cesàro limit of a sequence').
See my recent comment and proposals on Talk:Cesàro summation.   Opinions?   -- Hesselp (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
The book of Konrad Knopp about infinite series is online in german and I think even in english (the latter at least in snippets at google-books). Perhaps someone can use his/this authoritative definitions from there (I've not much time & energy in the moment) Gotti 04:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Druseltal2005 (talkcontribs)
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cesàro mean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply