>when the universe has an overflow error

>>9042062
numberphile is great, im learning so much math

>>9042067
if you're interesting in leveling up your autism...

Numberphile [math]\implies[/math] Mathologer [math]\implies[/math] 3blue1brown [math]\implies[/math] Blackpenredpen [math]\implies[/math] Wildberger [math]\implies[/math]Ben Garside [math]\implies[/math] obscure fringe math videos with less than 100 views [math]\implies[/math] reading a book

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that the number line, like spacetime, has curvature, and that an infinite sequence of numbers, like infinite gravity, produces infinite curvature back down to the beginning of the number line. It's honestly not that hard to grasp.

>>9042078
So that's not true at all and I think you should fucking kill yourself

> when math brainlets = the universe

Do negative numbers even exist in nature?

>>9042062
It does not converge. Their video conflates summation and Ramanigger summation.

File: 1499167116606.jpg (30KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 540x540px

>>9042157
Does your dick even exist in nature?

>>9042168
> Not sure if cia niggers or russel crowe

File: maths.webm (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

Autism: now in WEBM.

>>9042062
It's just the analytical continuation of the infinite sum of the reciprocal of all the integers to the s, in this case being -1.

File: 1500086899423.png (181KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 625x626px

>>9042078

Not sure if pseudoscience people actually believe or just a shitpost, but I've seen it all over the board. You can't even define the Riemann tensor on the set of positive integers, how the fuck is it supposed to have curvature?

>>9042157
>Do numbers even exist in nature?
ftfy

>>9042730
Granted, I'm not that poster, but my understanding is all nonfinite fields have curvature. Gravity. Abstraction. Language. Emotion. Etc. It's the nature of infinity to regress back into itself at the extreme. Even infinite light basically cancels out as black.

>>9042067
>t. brainlet

>>9042062
>look mum, I posted it again

>>9042163
/thread

Is it teue rammanujan summation is what allowed for renormalization in qft?

>>9042163
>It does not converge
Who says it has to converge? Only your limited brain power.

It's people like you who say we can't have the square root of a negative number, or that we can't have a number raised to an irrational exponent.

Hell, even negative numbers are just an analytic continuation of subtraction. All math is analytic continuation. For something to be "effectively equal to" and "actually equal to" are the EXACT same thing in mathematics.

So we can say that everything is just as real as everything else, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, number raised to an irrational exponent, a factorial of a fraction, and even theorems for divergent series.

>>9042888
Its literally the definition. i is set to be that answer it begs the question. -1 is just a vector in the - direction. Theyre axioms.

>>9042062
If i claim that the sum of two natural numbers will always be a natural number, which disproves which?

>>9042908
>>9042908
>If i claim that the sum of two natural numbers will always be a natural number
>sum of two natural numbers
>two
you've answered yourself. this doesn't imply in any way that it should hold for infinite sums.

>>9042077
Ben garside, my man. I don't know how he can keep doing so nice videos with that variety and low views

>>9042888
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>9043152
no u

>>9042926
>forgetting the associative property of addition
retard

>>9043346
okay then, show a retard how would you prove it
>inb4 you prove that any FINITE sum of natural numbers is a natural number and will argue that this implies the statement

>>9042888
>even negative numbers are just an analytic continuation of subtraction
>So we can say that everything is just as real as everything else, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, number raised to an irrational exponent, a factorial of a fraction, and even theorems for divergent series.
???????????????????????
fuck off

File: 1473792820457.jpg (54KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 566x480px

>>9043373
I actually wrote out a serious, 1400+ character response to your request for a proof, but when I realized just how trivial it really was I realize that it doesn't even need to be said. So here's a version that's a lot less professional and far more cathartic.

Let's say there's an object with a property. For example, the object is "you" and the property is "is a fucking retard". This property is time invariant. And what I mean by that, is every single second, if you were previously a fucking retard, in the next second you will also be a fucking retard.

So right now you're a retard. In an hour you'll be a retard. In ten years, you'll still be a retard. A nonretard should be able to trivially conclude that if you lived FOREVER, you would still be a retard. As the universe slowly approaches heat death, your blithering stupidity continues. A trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now, as the final protons in the universe spontaneously decay, you're the dumbest thing in existence. In some aetherial afterlife, your stupidity defies entropy and causes another Big Bang, asserting you as the God of a new universe, lasting forever more - a retard god.

So if 1 is a natural number, and 1+1 is a natural number, and 1+1+1 is a natural number, ANYONE can conclude that 1+1+1+1... is a natural number. It's not a natural number because the process ends, it's a natural number because you haven't altered the property of the sum as being a natural number. Idiot.

Go to school.

>>9043418
lmao you do realize that you did exactly what I called, right ?

>It's not a natural number because the process ends, it's a natural number because you haven't altered the property of the sum as being a natural number.

what the fuck does that even mean ? is an infinite sum of polynomials necessarily a polynomial ? is an infinite sum of skew-symmetric matrices necessarily skew-symmetric ? is an infinite sum of continuous functions necessarily continous ? because that's what your logic implies. I don't think math works the way you think it does, anon..

>>9043418

That argument is so bad, I think it's barely any better than Descartes' ontological proof. You don't take for account any emergent properties, or explain why the properties would be similar if you add them, or alter them, etc. Time invariance doesn't imply that if you add something to that thing, it will be same.

>>9043418
also, you COULD have said something that would make sense. you could have said that an infinite sum (in its usual definition) is just a sequence in N and, since N is closed in R, contains its limit points. I would reply that this doesn't concern us, because we're clearly talking about Ramanujan summation and you would say that I never specified this (and you would be right on this) and at least we would have some discussion. but what you wrote just proves that you have no idea what you're talking about really. I was gonna call you a retard, but there's no need for that now.

>>9043045
thank you anon, this is why i come to /sci/

>>9043418
>proving something for all finite n means you prove it for infinity as well
idiot

File: sexsphere.jpg (1MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x2048px

>>9043418
>Go to school.

That's harsh, and also the reason there's so many retards.

If you got questions, get alone or online, it's all the same, and start questioning fundamental assumptions

>>9043536
a pile of shit is still a pile of shit no matter how many turds you throw onto it