How much of a brainlet do you have to be to believe this nonsense?

I dunno, how much of a brainlet do you have to be to not even know how much of a brainlet the people who fall under the scope of your question will be??

The set of natural numbers has no finite sum. This -1/12 business is just someone misusing the zeta function.

>>8723919

At least as much of a brainlet as me and you since we both wasted time from our lives to post ITT.

>>8723922
Ha got you there, i wasted no time because my life holds little value. Who's the real brainless now?

>>8723917
2147483647+1=-2147483648
So it makes perfect sense to us CS brainlets

File: 1320381778056.jpg (239KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1280x800px

>>8723921
It gets much worse.

The video the image is from starts by saying
> well since 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) + ... oscillates between 0 and 1, lets say it's a 1/2
Then procedes to do shiftings and arithmetic operations on non-converging series to finally get the result.

Some serious hard core maths if you ask me.

>>8723917
[math] \displaystyle
\zeta \neq \Sigma
[/math]

>>8723930
desu this is a serious flaw in the reasoning of the video, and I don't know how they can ever get away with such a claim?

>>8723917
Close to brain-dead.

>wat is rigor

>>8723930
Stop being such an autist. That video is for show. For people who don't know analysis.

Everything in that video is rigorous if you construct a method of summation such that 1-1+1-1... converges to 0.5, and a such that whatever other sum they play with there converges.

And surprise surprise, such methods do exist you mouth breather. It is only that you can't fit hundreds of years of analysis into a youtube video.

>>8723930
but if we say that 1-1+1-1+1-1+...=x
then x=1-x
2x=1 x=1/2

Most people couldn't even give a definition of an infinite sum in analysis. The question is moot.

It's a meme for SCIENCE IS COOL faggots who don't know what the zeta function is. They apply the series definition when it doesn't exist and the function is defined by analytic continuation. It's just wrong

>>8724523
>manipulating a non convergent series like that

File: 1443054841056.gif (941KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 627x502px

>>8723921
Can someone explain the -1/12 meme to a non mathematician?

>>8723917

i haven't even got to calculus and know, from a base rational level that infinitely adding numbers doesn't get you -1/12, it just gets you an infinitely high number.

File: CodeCogsEqn.gif (3KB, 513x193px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 513x193px

it's simple really. I don't know why you retards don't get it

>>8723917
The real question is how much of a brainlet do you have to be to actually go out of your way baiting people into disbelieving several great mathematicians

>>8725293
I think it was originally discovered by Ramanujan (a very famous indian mathematician who obsessively did math in isolation in his shit hut despite only a shitty indian education)
Several other mathematicians agree with him. Look it up on youtube under numberphile

>>8724520

Except it fails at its premise because it does not converge to 0.5.

>>8724523

X does not equal one finite number and thus doesn't even satisfy the definition of a function, let alone a series

[eqn]1-1+1-1.... = (1+1+1...)-(1+1+1...) = -\frac{1}{2} - (-\frac{1}{2}) = 1[/eqn]

>>8725293
It's easy to confuse yourself with this shit but it's quite simple.

All that the ramanujan summation stuff, cutoff and zeta regularization does, is look at the smoothed curve at x = 0.
What sums usually do is look at the value as x->inf.

It's just a unique value you can assign to a sum, really they have many such values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sum1234Summary.svg

>>8723917
Brainlet here, If this infinite sum stuff was revealed as nonsense how much of what we thought would change

File: Capture.png (20KB, 467x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 467x480px

Does anybody here get tired of base 10 shit?
I'm no mathematician by any means, but I do think that different representations may offer some insight into different problem :p

-1/12 is so fucking stupid

it's literally the closest real mathematics can get to those retarded old ass "hold magnet in front of car for free thrust" troll images.

>>8723917
Serious question:
Is saying that than sum is equal to Aleph null wrong? Or are the aleph numbers just used in set theory?

youtube.com/watch?v=sD0NjbwqlYw

>all those brainlets that can't comprehend the value of an unrigorous but intuitive explanation

>>8723928

I challenge you to write a program that appears to attempt to calculate the sum of the natural numbers...
but by clever abuse of floats/pointers/whatever returns -1/12.

If you should succeed, CS will be elevated to the much-sought position of Current Sci Meme Degree.

Surely it's just a coincidence that extrapolating the curve to x=0 yields a y-intercept of -1/12, and this whole meme definitely isn't a result of brainlet compsci "approximation"

>>8727120
This is the same human error bullshit as the double slit experiment and every normie who thinks they understand Schrodinger's cat and paraphrases the Heisenberg uncertainty principle

>>8726476
You can interpret each term of the series as a cardinal number and then the sum would be alef null

>>8727120
I doubt any good such curve is known. What do you mean?

>>8727163
go to the wikipedia page and look at the line of best fit, goes straight back to -1/12
Also, it'll tell you that this whole meme is a result of Ramanujan summation, which was never intended to actually represent divergent sums
It's a human estimation tool that's getting misrepresented for controversy, same way Heisenberg uncertainty has nothing to do with what particles are actually doing and everything to do with our inability to observe them
It's just humans being dumb again, I would bet a large amount of money compsci is partially to blame

>>8727163
omg lol

>>8727178
>>8727274
What's the formula for the curve?

>>8727281
I dunno, go read it
It takes less than 30 seconds of research to find the math behind why this whole -1/12th meme is bullshit, literally google "sum of natural numbers"

>>8727284
Yeah, I searched. A Terrence Tao blog is related, but I see no formula for the interpolation and Wikipedia only shows the picture

>>8727299
That's because the formula is "take this infinite sum, and extrapolate backwards"
It isn't a y=x style function

>>8727309
>extrapolate
yea but how do you extrapolate.
There are many ways to fit a curve to the sum.

>>8727321
"The first four partial sums of the series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯. The parabola is their smoothed asymptote; its y-intercept is −1/12"
My bad, so it wasn't backwards extrapolation, it was the EBA
But we both should have just read that

I don't understand, why is it a meme?
I mean it is counter-intuitive but the proof in the video seems solid. Why is it wrong?

Nobody (apart from physicists, maybe) is saying its a convergent series or that it converges to -1/12. What they are saying is there is a way to extend the concept of an infinite sum to non-convergent series and if you do that the number you get is -1/12.

It isn't the infinite sum of the series, it's a methodology to assign a unique number to a series. The fact that when you apply it to a convergent series you happen to get the inifinite sum is meaningless.

File: -1.12.png (46KB, 1137x705px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1137x705px

>>8727120
>extrapolating the curve to x=0 yields a y-intercept of -1/12
It doesn't.

>>8724585
can you provide any theorem or proof or rigorously stated axiom that says you cannot manipulate an infinite series like that?

then fuck off?

>>8728574
is the formula not y=0.5x^2 + 0.5x ? that literally gives the exact values for the sum, not some bullshit decimals.

>>8728628
Yes. The fit isn't perfect. It should be pretty obvious that the values for [math]B_1[/math] and [math]B_2[/math] are 0.5 and not 0.500000000000003. Same for the intercerpt. It's 0, not -0.0000000000007.

From the image linked in this post >>8725675 it looks like the value at -0.5 might be -1/12.

>>8728636
>From the image linked in this post >>8725675 it looks like the value at -0.5 might be -1/12.
Oh wait, no. It's a parabola. It's never going to be less than 0 with those parameters.

>>8723930
>Since 1-1+1-... oscillates between 0 and 1, let's say it's a 1/2
REALLY MAKES YOU THINK

File: hahahaha.jpg (68KB, 610x288px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 610x288px

LMAO, /sci/KEKS STILL THINK MATHEMATICS IS INFALLIBLE AND NOT JUST ANOTHER HUMAN TOOL LIKE A HAMMER OR A NAIL

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA