Suppose $S$ is an uncountable set, and $f$ is a function from $S$ to the positive real numbers. Define the sum of $f$ over $S$ to be the supremum of $\sum_{x \in N} f(x)$ as $N$ ranges over all countable subsets of $S$. Is it possible to choose $S$ and $f$ so that the sum is finite? If so, please exhibit such $S$ and $f$.
closed as too localized by Andrés Caicedo, Andreas Thom, Felipe Voloch, S. Carnahan♦ May 10 '11 at 20:15This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 


No. $S$ is the union of the countably many sets $A_n=\{s\in S:f(s)>1/n\}$, so some $A_n$ must be infinite (in fact uncountable). Thus, your sum contains infinitely many terms all of which are at least $1/n$. 


Actually, I just realized how to solve the problem. The answer is that it is not possible. Suppose the sum is finite. Let $S_n$, for positive integer $n$, be the set of $x \in S$ such that $f(x) \ge \frac{1}{n}$. Then for each $n$, $S_n$ must be finite, if the sum is finite. But $S = \bigcup_n S_n$, meaning that $S$ is at most countable. In other words, the sum of uncountablymany nonnegative real numbers is finite only if all but countably many of those real numbers are $0$. 


This is a standard result in undergraduate analysis, although it is admittedly somewhat hard to find in the standard references. The following is a very nonstandard reference: see the last exercise in II.9.4 of these notes on sequences and series (see p. 69...for now; page numbers are subject to change). They occur in the context of a larger discussion on unordered summation, which is what you are looking into above. The general definition of unordered summability is a bit more complicated (it is a nice special case of convergence with respect to a net, although one needn't use the term), but in the case where the values of the "$S$indexed sequence" are nonnegative, it coincides with what you have given: see Proposition 82. Note that this fact comes up sometimes in practice. In this math.SE question I set as a challenge to give a proof of the following fact  there is no function $f: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with a removable discontinuity at every point  which does not use the kind of uncountable pigeonhole principle argument that you need to answer the current question. And I got a very nice answer! 

