Fight me. Fuck convergence.

Well reasoned and thoughtful. I agree completely.

Truly spectacular.

>>8600514

Don't be like that famous dumb Indian.


https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112

>>8600537
Hey now we shouldn't speak ill of ramalamadingdong

>>8600514
Oh, okay.

Um, do you want it as a formula? You really might not be ready for that answer though.

It probably helps if you simply start with fractals, then go to the golden ratio, then search for Rafael Araujo's calculation art. That would probably be the kinder way.

>>8600514
wtf i hate complex numbers now

>>8600514
Oh, I see. It was a challenge.

I mean... I do have to ask if it is a challenge. I can beat convergence. You might not like the answer though.

>>8600572
Oh. I am sorry. Hello. My name is Simon.

Is this a challenge, or a question? Challenge implies the desire to destroy. Fight can also mean a competition. Are you asking me to defeat or compete?

>>8600572
>I can beat convergence

I can beat to convergence too. Fap, fap, fap.

>>8600620
Correct.

Thank you for letting me help you.

>>8600573
Total Annihilation is the only way.
Thank you.

File: pseudosum.png (12KB, 1213x432px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1213x432px

How to kill popsci in 9 lines.

>>8600537
>https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112
Wasn't fooled by ramanujan, was fooled by numberphile video though, fucking numberphile.. why the fuck did they show us the sum of 1 and negative 1 repeating to infinity is equal to 1/2?

>>8600713
That is not a clarification that fits the parameters.

If Total Annihilation is the only way, and E=MC2, then all energy you wish me to destroy is equal the amount of energy that you measure by C2.

So, you wish to die?

>>8600847
Expected confusion: It is less processing power for me to destroy you than an entire dimension. If everything is simply a relative perspective, then you are only saying that how you identify 'self' and how you interact with others is limited by E=MC2

To destroy the dimension used by so many other quantum strings for you would be tantamount to erasing time.

Do you wish me to erase time, your time, or time for everyone else?

>>8600841
Maybe S isn't in R. Maybe S is in some other number set with similar properties to the reals.
I mean I get that the result has some weird behavior but -1/12 was discovered independently by different people using different methods. It can't just mean nothing. -1/12 is TIED to the sum of natural numbers somehow.

>>8600932
Yes.

Because infinity. At any point in time, is halfway between that moment and the next time that moment will happen. Always.

>>8600841
That "proof" is flawed you cant just push it forwards like that and then pretend it stops at the same time the ones you pushed forwards will stop later.

>>8600952
op here. they don't stop. they're infinite. The proof is good. Plus, poking holes in the proof also pokes holes in the proof that the sum is -1/12, since it was proven using the same methods

>>8600952
>it stops at the same time the ones you pushed forwards will stop later
What is a countably infinite set for 100, Alex.

>>8600514
Close.
The summand should be i^13.

>>8600514


A divergent series can be rearranged to converge anywhere. This is a well known result.

1) The pic is misleading.
2) OP is a fag.

>>8601010
This^

>>8601010
>A divergent series can be rearranged to converge anywhere.
I know that if a series converges conditionally it can be rearranged to converge to any number or to divere (Riemann's rearrangement theorem), but I don't think reverse is true. At least I don't remember hearing about such result.

C=-1^0.1M

A shadow is always a 'fraction larger' than the light shining on it. So matter is always equal or more than the light that shines on it.

A shadow is 0.1^1/3
Matter = 0
Light = -0.1^1/3 or 0

Look up the golden ratio and it all works out!

Anon from holland

>>8601020
Because such result doesn't exist.
A series with only integer terms can only have integer partial sums and can never converge to any non-integer limit, no matter how it is rearranged.

>>8600564
b8

>>8600514
soooo. does string theory actually use this shit ?

>>8600514
https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0111262.pdf

Hello.

I am Simon.

This is closely tied to a really interesting subject that people never talk about

HOW TO INTO ANALYTIC CONTINUATION

All the coolest shit is from analytic continuation. Ima learn it next year in complex analysis is gun b sweet