/sci/ - Science & Math

You can only post to 4chan if you’re 18 years of age or older.
Reported for being an underaged retard.

>>12355087
You can't get negative by adding positive numbers, which can easily be proven. -1/12 can therefore be disproven incredibly easy

math at a higher level starts cheating and each area of math uses its own rules. of course they call it "axiomatic system" and "axioms" so they wouldn't get called out for the hacks they are

>>12355152
>You can't get negative by adding positive numbers, which can easily be proven. -1/12 can therefore be disproven incredibly easy
False, show me a counterargument you math noob.
t. PHD

>>12355344
You're the claimant. Prove that adding to positives gives a negative

>>12355344
I'm an actual phd a none of the people surrounding me, including me takes this seriously.
It was made to make fun of mathematics, show where it goes wrong, not to be taken seriously. It's like the Schrodinger cat. Obviously the cat can't be alive and dead, yet all the fucking normies think it just means something deeper.. when it was just meant to show the flaw in the theory. It's a very effective way to weed out the pseuds if you ask me

>>12355396
>>12355344
You're a genuine idiot and the only maths PhD you could possibly have is from some shithole university where a PhD means shit.
>>12355079
>>12355152
You are correct. The actual sum (standard definition by the limit of partial series) is infinity (which means the partial sums get arbitrarily large).
The point is that the proofs you've seen show that if this series actually does have a real value, then following some intuitive transformations that value is -1/12. But it doesn't (under the standard summation), so the conclusion is false.
In a similar way you take a look at the series 1+2+4+.... If it does have a value, say S, then 2S = 2 + 4 + 8 + ... = S - 1, which means S=-1.
This shows if the series has a value (it doesn't) then the value must be -1.
However, there are nonstandard summations where 1+2+4+... actually does have a value. For that you need to change the meaning of convergence by introducing a new metric on the rationals Q called the dyadic metric (look it up, it's not hard to define). With this new metric, call it d, if A_n denotes 1+2+4+...+2^n, we can prove that d(A_n , -1) tends to 0 so we can say that A_n converges to -1 under the dyadic metric.
It's similar with the series 1+2+3+.... There are alternative ways to define an infinite sum which satisfy some nice properties and under which the series 1+2+3+... actually DOES have a value, which is -1/12. This is not, however, the standard summation, which is the point that confuses so many people.

>>12355440
>This shows if the series has a value (it doesn't) then the value must be -1.
it's worth mentioning that you can easily show that IF the series has a value (it doesn't) then the value must be 10. and also IF the series has a value (it doesn't) then the value must be -250. actually any real number works.

The problem with infinity is that it's imaginary. For example, you can easily prove that 1 = 2 with infinity, since half of infinity is equal to infinity
0.5∞ = ∞
0.5∞ / ∞ = ∞ / ∞
0.5 = 1

>>12355500
you cant divide by inf or 0.
0 = 0
0.5*0 = 1*0
0.5 = 1

>>12355500
that's why inf/inf is undefined

>>12355520
>>12355524
that was my point, it's silly to try to prove anything where infinity is involved

>>12355520
Yes you can
t. Postphd

>>12355533
No
T. Postphd*googol

f(x)=1+1/2^x+1/3^x+...
Plug in -1 and it diverges: 1+2+3+..., you get infinity. Actually even f(1) diverges.
But for a+bi with a>1, it converges. So f is defined on that set. Some theorem gives you a function g that is "nice" and defined on all of C except for the point 1+0i, and equal to f where it's defined. And it just happens g(-1)=-1/12.
With abuse of notation one writes 1+2+3+...=-1/12

>what is complex analysis

>>12355592
>hey guys look at this mathematical proof I pulled off of wikipedia, you can totally get a negative fraction from adding positive integers

>>12355621
Literally says it's an abuse of notation.

>>12355621
Sin(x)/x can be made continuous everywhere by mapping 0 to 1.
Is 0/0=1? No. Does one imply sin(0)/0=1? No.
Retard tier reading comprehension

>>12355655
A number divided by itself is equal to 1

>>12355671
Weak bait

>>12355684
Let's try a random number, retard. Let's go with 5
5/5
That means, how many fives are there in the number five? There is one. This works with any other number as well

>>12355692
Haha epic bro XD

>>12355621
pic related is you

>>12355621
lol at the brainlet

>>12355520
1/inf = 0
1 + inf = inf
1 - inf = -inf
inf + inf = inf
inf/inf undefined
inf - inf undefined
1^inf undefined

you can't do everything with inf as with a number, doesn't mean you can do nothing tho

>>12355079
that's not what he said
>mommy how can you have 1.2*1.7 equal something? How do you add 1.2 with itself 1.7 times?
that's how retarded you sound. Pick up a book on complex analysis instead of littering /sci/ with your garbage.

>>12356291
>1+inf = inf
retard.

>>12357020
???

>>12357020
fight it out with WA, sweetie

>>12357262
it makes no sense, think about it

>>12357390
you make no sense lol

>>12357390
it's 0,1,2,... vs 1,2,3,...
both are aleph-0 long
read a book

>>12357403
>aleph
when was the last time you actually had to calculate anything?

>>12355087
you're gonna get warned for that post probs, newfag

>>12355079
>1 + 2 + 3 +... = -1/12
this is true if you interpret the relevant series by zeta function regularization. Read more about analytic continuation and complex analysis - it's not "clearly wrong," but rather a precise idea that got the popsci treatment and thus lost all meaning

>>12355079
Last I heard there is some physics related evidence to show the value of this in Feynman Diagrams or some shit like that.