Why don't Mathemeticians respect the scientific method? You get retarded shit like -1/12

>retarded shit like -1/12

Nothing retarded about it, it's a number that describes how the series diverges.

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_+_2_+_3_+_4_+_⋯#/media/File:Sum1234Summary.svg

You don't need to repeat the 'you' if those clauses are parallel. It serves only for emphasis.

An empty reply. Embarrassing frankly.

>brainlet struggles to comprehend a trivial concept, resorts to passive-aggressive rage

The scientific method is not everything. Furthermore it's very bad at some things, try solving programming problems with it for example.

It's not a science. Thus Science & Math.

>You get retarded shit like -1/12.
Try understand axiomatic systems before you post, mate.
Most people here wouldn't be able to define the framework that it needs to prove [math] \sum_{n=1}^\infty \dfrac {1} {2^n} = 1 [/math], because that requires the uncountable set [math] {\mathbb R} [/math] and it's standard norm. It's just that this theory and that above formula in particular has a simple geometric interpretation (that a square tile of area 1 can be partitioned in halves, 1/2+1/2, which can be partitioned into 1/2+1/4+1/4, which can be partitioned into 1/2+1/4+1/8+... and so on). You just don't happen to know the application for the formula with -1/12 which requires another framework than calculus to set up (an application being the Casimir effect in quantum electrodynamics, say ... not taught to kids like plane geometry of course).

wat.jpg

so we see what it does, ask ourselves why it does that, come up with ideas as to why it does that, then communicate to others what we find and what we think... and that's not helpful?

I want to know how YOU solve programming problems.

lel.

>You just don't happen to know the application
The applications of magic are endless, that doesn't mean it exists or has any founding in science. Another embarrassing "argument".

can any mathtards explain this to me?

why have we settled on whatever set of axioms we use?

how did we come to the conclusion that the current set of axioms are ideal (or as close to as ideal as we can come up with so far) for whatever math does.

Follow up question, what the fuck is math for, on a fundamental level?

>any reasoning is the scientific method
no
the scientific method is a very specific process of model construction inside paradigms, with small local advancements by unability to falsify something

>why ZFC
they're pretty fucking good, and pretty fucking reasonable
>these exists and empty set
>if you have two sets, there's a set which contains elements from both
etc etc. they just stand the test of time, and the things that we deduce from them correspond very closely to what we expect from reality (our math works really well applied to physical models).

>what is math for
>fundamentally
too broad. everyone has their own goals for what math is. I guess math is good for understanding what we can model with reasonable objects, and what properties imply

so there's no real meaning to it, it's just a set of logical axioms we use to build models?

what would it take for the axioms to change?

>our math works really well applied to physical models
Ahahahahahahahaha

it depends on what you think "meaning" is. the way in which we think about objects and the "basic" assumptions we take for given correspond very closely with the axioms we use

it would take a very fucking good reason for the axioms to change in any significant ways. there are small variations depending on what you're studying (study of categories, proper classes, etc etc) but the idea is that the axioms should allow to construct the natural numbers without assuming much of anything else. that's really the only fundamental thing.

>so there's no real meaning to it
No, you didn't really read it their post.

They are good because they make sense. It's what we expect from sets. It's what makes intuitive sense, and cannot be proved from simpler statements.

It would take an awful contradiction or paradox in the axioms for them to change. E.g. Russell's paradox. We have the Banach-Tarski which follows from AC and people say that isn't even that bad. Most people don't want them changed.

but how do we know a "set" has any meaning.

nothing has any objective "meaning", whatever you think that is.

/thread

so math, on a fundamental, is just useful bullshit?

> claims to be a "scientist"
> can't figure out simple stuff like biogenesis
haha step aside, let the mathematicians take the throne!

That's a questions some mathematicians struggle with. I think most would say it is simply too basic to give any rigorous definition. It's a collection of things. You can observe a set in real life.

everything, on a fundamental level, is just useful bullshit

w0w, so deep bruh...