Explain how this is wrong.

File: 1478541879606.png (107KB, 308x280px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 308x280px

>>8468453
the left track doesn't kill infinite people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_1_%2B_1_%2B_1_%2B_%E2%8B%AF
downvoted, unfriended, blocked, saged and reported


kys brainlet

>>8468453
1+1+1+...= 1+(1+1)+(1+1+1)+...=1+2+3+4+5+...=-1/12

>>8468453
$\zeta(0)=-1/2$

>>8468480
[eqn]1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\,\cdots \,=\, 1 \,+\, \left( 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \right) \,+\, \left( 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1 \,+\, 1\right) \,+\,\cdots \,=\, 1 \,+\, 4 \,+\, 9 \,+\, 16 \,+\, 25 \,+\,\cdots \,=\, \zeta \left(-2 \right) \,=\, 0[/eqn]
Mathtards utterly BTFO.

>>8468453
because 1+1+1...=-1/2
-1/12>-1/2 so you should let it go to the top track retard

>>8468470
>>8468483

Which is more cruel, un-killing half a person or one-twelfth of a person?

>>8468490
Associativity only applies to finite sums.

File: tumblr_inline_n5em0cyNwm1s1muin.png (141KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x281px

>>8468534
no idea

>>8468552 cont'd
now that I thought of it this way, un-killing half a person is more cruel

>>8468560
If you think about it the other way, not killing a half person is better than not killing a twelfth of a person because less people die if you don't kill half a person

>>8468564
not killing =/= un-killing

>>8468541
Not when you use the dank transcendental summation axiom which is part of the Brady-Barnett-Wildberger theory.

>>8468453
There aren't an infinite number of people you can kill.

>>8468453
it's Riemann no Reimann

>>8468797
And isn't that, ultimately, the real tragedy?

>>8468797

Also, there's no reason to beleive the train even goes infinitely far along the track.

>>8468534
One-twelfth.

Less likely of unkilling the brain which would cause the person to suffer as he dies.

However there's a turning point where the person is more likely to survive if you unkill x% of him than he is to suffer if you unkill y% of him.

This is stupid because it's out of bounds.

The largest number is 10^200.

>>8469066
What about 10^200 + 1?

>>8469085
That's 0

>>8469087
What about negative numbers? I'm assuming this strange model mean it rolls over somehow and isn't just undefined since you said 0.

File: braket.jpg (24KB, 465x465px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 465x465px

>>8468453
the bottom trackmust eventually jam the train. I mean 10+ people in a row? that's bound to slow it down -> more people saved along the line. and plenty of time to free some of them.

>>8468470
>>8468480
>>8468490
>>8468533
This is why analytic continuation is nonsense. It's just a game of semantics and has no practical application. It's sole use is in coming up with attention-grabbing, absurd results like [math]-frac{1}{12}[/math].

>>8468453
If you let the train go it will kill people until it gets stuck on a large pile of bodies
If you switch the tracks it will kill people until its out of fuel

>>8469102
After 0 it alternates between positive and negative every other number.

File: multi-track-drifting-corrupt-politicians-sleazy-media-trump-america-great-3048532.png (179KB, 500x640px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 500x640px

>>8468453
It just werks

File: 1474113742852.jpg (30KB, 550x350px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 550x350px

isn't hat -1/12 result used in some weird string theory stuff?

can somebody who actually knows what their talking about elaborate on that? How exactly is it ok to use a result like -1/12 in a meaningful (physical?) way or is thist just another piece of "why string theory is retarded" ?
enlighten me