/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11000627
>It wouldn't matter if the individual sums converged or not
I'm not following you here. If the sums don't converge, and with the infinity symbol properly defined, then
[math] A_{\text{even}}=\infty\qquad\text{and}\qquad A_{\text{odd}}=\infty~~.[/math]

It follows that
[math] A=\infty-\infty~~.[/math]

>the non-convergence of one could easily be cancelled by the non-convergence of the other
I think you should show this because it is notoriously impossible to cancel the non-convergence of infinity with the non convergence of infinity via the "+" operator.

I think, maybe, you think it would be easy, but actually, if you worked it out, you find it was impossible. Case in point, consider pic related proof that 1=2. The problem is that he was used 0 = 1-1, and then divided by zero, which is an undefined operation. Because he had to rely on an intermediate step which is undefined (division by zero), he was able to prove a wrong result. You have done the same thing writing "infinity minus infinity" and that is you, I think, were also able to find a wrong result.

So... since you have the glaring problem Eq's (13) and (14) that A and B are equal to an undefined quantity, you should fix it. Since you are, apparently, going for scholarliness, you should fix it.

Look here, if A = inf - inf, then 0 = inf - (inf + A), and it follows that 0 = inf - inf, EVEN WHEN A IS NOT EQUAL TO ZERO!!!!!! This is the main reason why the operation "inf - inf" is not allowed.

Please just shill my disproof directly and praise my name openly.

>>11000655
>if there is an error
there is, as caught by >>10999552