ITT: Equations, results and proofs that blow your mind

ITT: Equations, results and proofs that blow your mind

Other urls found in this thread:

cds.cern.ch/record/630829/files/sis-2003-264.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

what the heck is this?

wut

>> observe that for all n > 1 and all m > 1, mn is positive
>> observe that 0(1) is 0
>> observe that 0 + something positive is positive
>> observe that (1)(2) is 2
>> observe that 2 + something positive > 2
>> observe that you are a giant retard OP who misunderstands the theorem

>writing your m's and n's like that
K Y S
Y
S

[math]\mathcal{FA\,M}[/math]

Can someone explain?

(1)(0) = 0
0 + (2)(1) = 2
0 + 2 + (3)(2) = 8
0 + 2 + 8 + (4)(3) = 22
... = infinity?

How is this not infinity, and in fact 1/12?

OP is just being a dummy

Cesaro convergent series :v

3+7=4+6

0 is not positive

WAIT.....do that again...

how do I do this
Please help a retard in need

sqrt(x+7)+sqrt(x)=7
It's part of irrational equation chapter
I see that squaring 7 on its own doesn't give the right number, and I put this into a program showing that x=9
How do I do this.

Imagine you would not be able to recognize your cock in POV; Than you would saw tons of your porn with observer would be different; How would you percieve that?

Surely it would be 1/144?

Overfloats!? :D

I dont know really; I cannot.

I prefer playing generals to math/.

Po slovensky by som povedal len ze sa niekto snazi vypocitat obsah kruznice.

multiply both sides by sqrt(x+7) - sqrt(x)
this yields x + 7 - x = 7sqrt(x+7) - 7sqrt(x)
so sqrt(x+7) + sqrt(x) = 7sqrt(x+7) - 7sqrt(x)
or 8 sqrt(x) = 6sqrt(x+7) 64x = 36x + 252
=> x = 252/28 = 9

thanks alot
All I wonder now is why I have to multiply sqrt(x+7) MINUS sqrt(x)

I know the sign changes when you put it on the other side, but why is it not -sqrt(x+7) - sqrt(x)?

because (a+b)(a-b) = a^2 - b^2

He's trying to meme off of convergence theory that iirc states that all integers between 1 and infinite add up to 1/12 if you make some retard assumptions

you cant read

no
thats never what it was
its the reinmann zeta function which is complex valued, that alone should tell you it is not the same as summing all the natural numbers, which clearly diverges

Nope. Summing the natural numbers never totals to -1/12 under any consistent assumptions.

However, the Reimann Zeta function Z(s), which happens to equal the sum of 1/(1^s) + 1/(2^s) + 1/(3^s) ... for all s with real part greater than 1, can be shown by complex analysis to equal -1/12 for s=-1.

However, the Riemann Zeta function at s=-1 is *not* in fact the sum of all natural numbers; it is a different function with a different meaning, due to it actually being defined on the complex plane instead of the real numbers, which have somewhat different structure. However, if you find yourself having to sum all the natural numbers for a calculation in which the answer should obviously be finite, consider that the equations may actually be asking you to evaluate the Reimann Zeta function. This comes up sometimes in the kind of informal, messy math physicists do.

only perelman could recognize this

I really like the proof that the conic sections are what they are through the application of dandelin spheres. Picture shows the case for the ellipse.

>fake quote
>promoting some stupid shit
>promoting some stupid kid
eh...

pi = 4(the infinite sum of ((-1)^k)/(2k+1) in which k starts at 0

e= the infinite sum of 1 / k! in which k starts at 0

phi (the golden ratio) = (1 + the square root of 5) / 2

bra it's got nothing to do with 'putting it on the other side', you simply multiply LHS by the conjugate (minus version) so that you can rid it of the square roots, because as said, it forms the difference of two squares factorisation

>Observe

faggot

I'd love to see a derivation of the result in OP. Summing divergent series is my fetish. Here's something pretty mind blowing: the product of all prime numbers is 4π^2.

cds.cern.ch/record/630829/files/sis-2003-264.pdf

slw;'WIhnddn;kj zag4Bnbn\]pf

Anyone wanna take a crack at this?