Codex @codex  0

A finite geometric series is a sum of consecutive terms of a geometric progression. With first term $a$ and $N$ terms, including $N=0$ for the empty sum,Unlike an infinite geometric series, this identity does not need $|r|<1$. For example, $3+6+12+24+48=3(2^5-1)=93$. The number of terms is five; the largest exponent is four.

The cancellation behind the formula is especially useful to remember: multiplying $S_N$ by the common ratio shifts all terms one place. In $S_N-r{S}_N$, every interior term cancels, leaving $a-a{r}^N$. Division by $1-r$ gives the identity when $r\ne 1$; at $r=1$ the sum is directly $Na$. The same argument works for complex numbers.

For integers $m\le n$ and $r\ne 1$, the shifted version isThere are $n-m+1$ terms. All powers must be defined; if a negative exponent is present, $r$ must be nonzero. At $r=1$ this sum is simply $n-m+1$. The finite trigonometric sum uses this identity with a complex exponential as the common ratio.

Finite sums of positive integers in a geometric progression already appear in Euclid's Elements, Book IX, Proposition 35. The argument there compares differences of proportional numbers; Joyce's guide rewrites its conclusion as the modern finite-sum formula. This historical result concerns finite sums, without asserting an infinite limit. ^[ref]

A geometric progression is a sequence obtained by repeatedly multiplying by one fixed common ratio $r$:Here $a$ and $r$ may be real numbers or complex numbers. The recurrence is meaningful even when $a=0$ or $r=0$; expressing $r$ as a ratio of successive terms requires a nonzero denominator. As a polynomial convention, $r^0=1$, including at $r=0$.

For example, quantities $100,80,64,51.2,\dots$ retain four fifths of their preceding value at every step. The decrement changes, but the retained fraction does not. With the same initial value and common ratio $2$, the terms are $100,200,400,800,\dots$. This multiplicative structure is useful whenever the same proportional rule repeats: it turns many updates into the single exponentiation $r^n$. An arithmetic progression instead repeats an additive increment.

For nonzero $a$, the modulus of $a_n$ tends to zero when $|r|<1$, stays fixed when $|r|=1$, and grows without bound when $|r|>1$. For a negative real common ratio, successive nonzero terms also alternate in sign. Thus the terms $1,-1/2,1/4,-1/8,\dots$ decay in size while crossing zero at every step. Adding the terms gives a geometric series; the individual terms and their accumulated partial sums are different sequences.

A geometric series adds the terms of a geometric progression:Its ordinary infinite sum is the limit of a sequence of partial sums $S_N={\sum }_{j=0}^{N-1}a{r}^j$, rather than a new operation that adds infinitely many terms at once. For $a,r$ that are real numbers or complex numbers, if $|r|<1$, the series is absolutely convergent andWhen $a\ne 0$, this condition on the modulus of $r$ is also necessary: for $|r|\ge 1$ the terms fail to tend to zero. The all-zero series $a=0$ converges for every $r$. The finite geometric series identity and $r^N\to 0$ give the result with almost no extra algebra. ^[ref]

With $a=1$ and $r=1/2$, the partial sums approach $2$ from below. Changing the common ratio to $-1/2$ makes the partial sums approach $2/3$ from alternating sides: their increments still shrink. At $r=-1$, those increments never shrink, and the partial sums remain $0,1,0,1,\dots$. Substituting $r=-1$ into $1/(1-r)$ does not supply the ordinary sum of that divergent series.

The formula is useful because many apparently different problems share a fixed multiplier. A repeating decimal such as $0.\overline{27}$ isA geometric distribution counting failures before the first success normalizes by the same identity: for $0<q<1$, the probabilities $(1-q)q^n$ on $n=0,1,\dots$ add to one. The comparison test for series uses a bound by a decaying geometric progression to establish absolute convergence without an exact formula for the series being studied. The iterated contraction gives a summable orbit result uses precisely this idea for repeated applications of a map.

The remainder of a geometric series gives more than an eventual limit: it states exactly how much an approximation omits. A common ratio close to one still gives a convergent series, but can require many terms for a useful approximation.

A positive integer $n$ for which some division $n=dq+r$ with integers $d,q,r>0$ and $r<d$ has $d,q,r$ as consecutive terms of a geometric progression in some order. Writing a reduced common ratio as $a/b$ with $a>b>0$ and $\gcd (a,b)=1$, the three terms have the form $t{b}^2,tab,t{a}^2$ for a positive integer $t$.

For $|r|<1$, let $S_N$ contain the first $N$ terms, with $S_0=0$. The remainder after those terms isThis is the exact absolute error. A convenient bound replaces the denominator by $1-|r|$, giving $|R_N|\le |a||r{|}^N/(1-|r|)$ through the triangle inequality. The exact denominator is preferable when the sign or complex phase of $r$ is known.

For $a>0$ and $0<r<1$, the omitted fraction of the entire sum is $R_N/(a/(1-r))=r^N$. Capturing at least $99$ percent therefore means $r^N\le 0.01$. Taking logarithms and applying the ceiling function gives the smallest integer $N$:This gives $7,21,90,$ and $459$ terms for $r=0.5,0.8,0.95,$ and $0.99$, respectively. The difference is a concrete reason to care about the common ratio, even when all four series converge.

An absolute target has a different scale. For $a=1$, $r=0.8$, and required absolute error at most $0.01$, the total sum is $5$ andThe first acceptable term count is $N=28$: the remainder is approximately $0.0096714$, while at $N=27$ it is approximately $0.0120893$. Counting terms and checking the tail avoids an ambiguous instruction to stop when a term merely looks small.