惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

I
InfoQ
G
Google Developers Blog
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
月光博客
月光博客
博客园 - 聂微东
博客园 - Franky
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
A
About on SuperTechFans
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
Blog — PlanetScale
Blog — PlanetScale
U
Unit 42
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
F
Fortinet All Blogs
H
Help Net Security
J
Java Code Geeks
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
博客园 - 叶小钗
L
LangChain Blog
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
N
Netflix TechBlog - Medium

Scientific American

Former deputy surgeon general Erica Schwartz nominated as new CDC chief NASA Artemis II astronauts say thank you to the world Congress grills RFK, Jr., about vaccines and cuts to health budget How the Grand Canyon formed is a surprisingly messy story. Here's the latest clue How far from humanity were the astronauts of Artemis II? The answer will surprise you Effect of antiamyloid Alzheimer’s drugs ‘absent or trivial,’ Cochrane review finds The Trump administration is looking to experts to weigh in on peptides When a naked mole rat queen dies, that usually means war—but not for this colony NASA needs nuclear power for its moon base. Here’s the White House plan to get it Why do older people have fewer seasonal allergies? 250-million-year-old fossil proves mammal ancestors laid eggs A face-swapping illusion can unlock childhood memories 30 years of Pokémon—how the Japanese franchise mirrors real-world science Sperm whales may make their own vowel sounds, similar to human language Colombia will euthanize Pablo Escobar’s invasive ‘cocaine hippos’ NASA’s Artemis III will pit SpaceX against Blue Origin The East Coast could see blazing hot temperatures this week. Here’s why Scientists just discovered 5.6 million bees under a New York State cemetery The real science of Pokémon How chemists engineer the signature smells of luxury perfumes How two mathematicians solved a cryptography mystery The engineering marvels hidden inside six-figure watches Expensive versus affordable binoculars—what’s the difference? How physicists found a new type of magnet hiding in plain sight A hot pair of supplements, creatine and methylene blue dye, may not work together Unlikely paths to discovery The baffling ecological disaster that's killing America’s freshwater mussels Poem: ‘How I Became a Spitfire Pilot during My Cataract Operation’ DARPA built an AI to fact-check enemy weapons claims Mathematicians created an ‘impossible’ shape that shouldn’t exist
A lamp flickering on and off inspires the math mystery of...
2026-05-19 · via Scientific American

This article is from Proof Positive, our friendly math newsletter that's delivered to your inbox every Tuesday afternoon. Sign up today and read it first.


Like probably every child, I used to love playing with light switches and turning lamps on and off again in quick succession. At some point, my mother intervened and told me to stop. But what if you ignored that warning—for the purposes of a mathematical thought experiment?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It goes like this: You turn a lamp on, then off a minute later, then back on again after 30 seconds, then off after 15 seconds, and so on. Each time you flip the switch, you halve the time intervals so that the lamp turns on or off faster and faster. After two minutes, will the lightbulb be on?

This supposedly simple question has produced heated discussion. In principle, the time intervals become smaller and smaller until they amount to zero after two minutes. British philosopher James F. Thomson, who wrote about the thought experiment in 1954, noted: “It seems impossible to answer this question. It cannot be on, because I did not ever turn it on without at once turning it off. It cannot be off, because I did in the first place turn it on, and thereafter I never turned it off without at once turning it on. But the lamp must be either on or off. This is a contradiction.”

In principle, versions of this puzzle date back to 1703, when Italian scholar Guido Grandi was concerned with infinite series. These denote sums with infinitely many additions, such as: 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... No matter how many terms you add in this series, the result is always less than 2. Mathematicians therefore say the limit of the series is 2. For that reason, in the thought experiment described, it only takes two minutes to flick the switch of a lamp an infinite number of times.

Grandi devoted much of his work to another strange series: 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – ... The idea is that you alternately subtract and add 1 over and over again. (Going back to our thought experiment, you can associate 1 with the switching on of a lamp and –1 with the switching off.) If you try the arithmetic here, you will quickly find that if you consider an even number of summands, the result will be 0, but if you consider an odd number, the result is 1. But what about infinity? Is infinity an even or an odd number?

The Grandi Series and a Compromise Solution

A graphic showing how each halved value being added together gets smaller and smaller and fits into a rectangle of a value of 2 units

The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is never greater than 2.

Tobias Vogel (Toby001) via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Grandi proposed another way to frame this problem. By placing parentheses strategically, you can obtain an infinite sum of zeros: (1 – 1) + (1 – 1) + (1 – 1) + ... With this arrangement, the limit of the series should be 0, so the lamp is off at the end. But of course, you could move those brackets one place to the right and get another limit: 1 + (–1 + 1) + (–1 + 1) + (–1 + 1) + ... = 1, meaning the lamp would be on at the end. So again you have two results to choose from: 0 or 1.

To make everything even more confusing, Grandi found another possible result: 1/2. For this, Grandi wrote down the infinite series and gave the name S to the limit: S = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 +... Then he excluded the first summand and stated: S = 1 – (1 – 1 + 1 – 1 +...) = 1 – S. That led to the simple equation S = 1 – S, so S = 1/2 follows. And today many experts are convinced that this result is correct.

Reimagining the Thought Experiment

But what does this mean for Thomson’s lamp? Is the room half lit and half dark at the end of the two minutes? For every moment, no matter how short, before the time span has expired, one can describe the state of the lamp. But at exactly two minutes, the result remains a mystery. To shed more light on this, physics philosophers John Earman and John D. Norton moved the thought experiment into a somewhat more real setting.

Suppose a metal ball is dropped on an induction cooktop. First the ball is in the air for a minute, then 30 seconds, then only 15, and so on. It bounces infinitely for two minutes, generating an electrical pulse in the plate each time. That plate connects to a lamp that lights up with each contact. In this scenario, the ball comes to a halt after two minutes as a result of gravity on the metal plate, so the lamp is on at the end. Put another way, the series limit is 1.

But you can reverse the situation: Imagine that the ball does not close the circuit between the lamp and the induction field but rather opens it. In that case, the lamp is turned off whenever the ball lands on the plate. Thus, after two minutes have elapsed, the lamp is dark. According to this interpretation, the limit of the Grandi series is 0. Norton and Earman therefore concluded that the Thomson lamp is not a paradox but rather a problem that is incompletely described.

This article originally appeared in Spektrum der Wissenschaft and was reproduced with permission. It was translated from the original German version with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed by our editors.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.