/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16028060]

Somehow... -1/12 returned

[Anonymous No.16028128]

[math] A= ... + \frac{1}{x^2}+\frac{1}{x} + 1 + x + x^2 + ... [/math]
[math] A x = A[/math]
[math] A (x-1)= 0[/math]
Therefore [math] A = 0 [/math].

[Anonymous No.16028130]

God dammit. Why don't they just let it go?

[Anonymous No.16028199]

Infinity doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16028333]

>>16028128
Based
Only analysisfags disagree

[Anonymous No.16028343]

>>16028060
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-euler-maclaurin-formula-bernoulli-numbers-the-zeta-function-and-real-variable-analytic-continuation/

[Anonymous No.16028346]

>>16028128
kekked and checked

[Anonymous No.16028348]

>>16028128
OR [math] x=1[/math]. You forgot the other root.

[Anonymous No.16028429]

>>16028060
given that the guy in that vid didn't watch the previous numberphile videos covering that topic, it would seem that this way explaining things is the most run of the mill way of going about it, id suggest seeing the second(and unlisted, although linked in the vid with op's thumbnail) video for some actual new material
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beakj767uG4

[Anonymous No.16028557]

>>16028060
Here we go again...

[Anonymous No.16028699]

>>16028429
I just watched this did -1/12 make him go schizo

[Anonymous No.16028856]

>>16028128
> A(x-1)=0
how?

[Anonymous No.16028897]

>>16028856
Filtered by factorization

[Anonymous No.16028915]

>>16028128
A uniform, global influence is indistinguishable from no influence at all. That's what this equation is really showing.

[Anonymous No.16028916]

>>16028897
Are you actually retarded?

[Anonymous No.16028917]

>>16028429
GOD DAMMIT LET IT GO!!!
JUST LET IT GO!!!
STOP TALKING ABOUT -1/12!!!

[Anonymous No.16029163]

>>16028060
If you write a computer program running on avg. CPU today, the task of program is to find function that approach -1/12 for all numbers inserted, you can arrive at said function pretty fast compared to shitposting.

Hint: It's low number and it's finite math growth example, because higher the number inserted, lower the amount you add to sum because it's on the right side of /.

That's it, now do your fucking homework.

[Anonymous No.16029166]

return of the king

[Anonymous No.16029376]

>>16028060
Numberphile and computerphile are two of the most disappointing youtube channels. It's like they don't even understand the subjects and are just retarded normies soifacing over things that seem counterintuitive (and wrong in cases like the -1/12 horseshit).

[Anonymous No.16029412]

>>16028060
Casual retard here. I dont get this. Is it some sort of inside joke or troll by mathematicians, and they are laughing at all the dumb normies like me?

Guess what I am asking is this: Is this thing about all the whole numbers adding up to -1/12 an actual unquestionable and rock solid mathematical equation? I have seen people post the proof but I am not sure if they are taking the piss or not ( I am too dumb to figure out if there is some logical fallacy ).

But lets assume they are not taking the piss. That this is rigorous and absolutely 100% correct. If so then doesn't this tell us that there are some fundamental problems in mathematics, especially with regards to our concept and use of infinity? Because this -1/12 thing is obviously untrue, the same way as if you used some obtuse mathematics to prove zero is a a bigger quantity than 1. It just doesn't make any sense. Is there someone here who can offer some insight?

[Anonymous No.16029428]

>>16029412
When calculating an infinite sum there are basically two steps you need to do, first and most important, ESTABLISH THE SUM CONVERGES, and second work out the only value it could converge to - which you might do e.g. by (carefully) manipulating the sum to get an equation you can solve for.

What this -1/12 nonsense basically amount to is "Hey, what if we, like, just skip that first step?"

If the sum over the integers converged to anything, the only value it could converge to is -1/12. BUT IT DOESN'T CONVERGE.

[Anonymous No.16029441]

>>16028916
Ax=A
Ax-A=A-A
Ax-A=0
A(x-1)=0

[Anonymous No.16029442]

>>16029428
It all depends how you define convergence.

[Anonymous No.16029445]

>>16028917
WELCOME
TO
THE MACHINE

[Anonymous No.16029453]

>>16029428
Very well. But then how does one mathematically prove it does not converge? Is that why this bullshit exists, simply because such a proof is lacking or impossible to establish?

[Anonymous No.16029469]

>>16029453
Are you seriously asking if it's difficult to know if 1+2+3+4+5+... diverges or converges?

It diverges.

[Anonymous No.16029470]

>>16029469
Depends how you define convergence.

[Anonymous No.16029541]

>>16029441
>Ax=A
>Ax-A=A-A
>Ax-A=0
>A(x-1)=0
Yes, you actually are lmfao

[Anonymous No.16029546]

>>16029442
>>16029470
Redefining convergence is just a fancier way of ignoring that it doesn't converge.

[Anonymous No.16029567]

>>16029546
It just converges differently.

[Anonymous No.16029580]

The whole point of Ramanujan's thought-experiment was to force mathematicians not to think like a bunch of HIV-demented faggots from 4chan:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/summingNaturals.html

But by all means, keep buggering on

[Anonymous No.16029720]

>>16029469
You are a fuckwit. Saying "it diverges" is no different from what I said before. The answer is obviously not -1/12.
I asked for a proof it does not converge. You cant provide it.
You dont know shit, you pompous twat.

[Anonymous No.16029845]

>>16028128
it's correct

[Anonymous No.16030130]

>>16029720
For any M, you can find an N such that for all n>N the partial sums are greater than M. This is the definition of diverging to infinity.
You can find N explicitly if you want, the partial sums are just the triangle numbers after all, just solve N(N+1)/2>M, but the fact that you can always find such an N is obvious. So fuck you, you moron.

[Anonymous No.16031773]

Isn't the impressive part of this video that the alternative weighting function rather than partial sums converges?

[Anonymous No.16032013]

>>16031773
Except it's bullshit, because the weighting function that gets you exactly -1/12 only "works" because cos(n/N) will go negative infinitely often for n>N.
Trying to hold that to be true in the limit when N is infinity is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16032067]

>>16032013
They gave Tao a lot of praise on this, but its just generalization of the summing function to new forms, which invariably generalized to accumulators and other basic elements of computing.
Mathematicians are so 1700s

[Anonymous No.16032310]

>>16029845
My gut bacteria got better handwritting than you.

[Anonymous No.16032722]

>>16029376
I completely agree. I hate this faggot's videos.
The first -1/12 shitstorm they orchestrated from around 2014 was absurdly irritating and now they came back to stir the pot 10 years later.

[Anonymous No.16032754]

>>16029412
>>16029428
watch the second video >>16028429

[Anonymous No.16032759]

>>16028128
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.16032765]

>>16029412
ramnujan summation merely assigns a value to a divergent, infinite series. the ramanujan sum tells you how quickly the series diverges.

[Anonymous No.16032850]

>>16032310
Not that anon but it's probably because he's writing with his mouse cursor in mspaint. Shit's hard.