Convince me why i should take math seriously

Damn I go radio silence for an exam for one week and there's already a spicy new math pasta

1-2+3-4+...
couldn't we simplify that to -1-1-1-1-1-... which would be divergent?

Then again it could be simplified to 1+1+1+1+...

youtube.com/watch?v=d6c6uIyieoo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_+_2_+_3_+_4_+_⋯#Heuristics

wow, so you take a minuscule part of the zeta function out of context and think you're smarter than the entire mathematical community, eh?

>learn math from school teacher
>has respect of math
>discovers stuff not in accordance with his handwaving philosophy implied by the school teachers teachings
>thinks he's above math research
BRAVO

Mathaticans are just not 120% formal (like type theoristc in theoretical computer science, say) so yoy get overlappong notations for different possibly cometiting notions. Get used to it

Math is the oldest meme in the book, bruh.

Well, except for books, that is..

m8 i almost took the b8

the math problem in your pic is a gross misrepresentation of the problem.

The summation series goes all the way to infinity, eventually.

The y-intercept of the summation series hits the X axis at -1/12

you have no idea what you are talking about

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

Ok I see how you got it but that's just mathturbation right? 1+2+3+4+... Doesn't actually equal -1/12 in the real world so there has to be a flaw in the formulation or a law of math. Or is this just something wrist deal with cautiously.

gee I wonder why people didn't think of assigning to zeta(1) a value of y-intercept of
1/1+ 1/2 +1/3 + ....

This meme needs to die. A mathematician applies analytic extension to fill in gaps for a specific function. A contradictory result pops out.

"Wow, I am not going to question the validity of my method and explore why it failed. I'll just assert that my method must be valid and so now 1+2+...=-1/12."

No real mathematician accepts this reasoning or result. It's meme trolls that perpetuate it.

Before Ramanujan, it was well understood that switching the order of terms in an infinite series changes the nature and properties of that series including potentially the convergence and limit of convergence. Consider:

1+1-1+1+1-1+... = diverges to infinity; let's just do a little creative term rearranging. Since I have and infinite number of 1's and -1's, let's write as follows 1-1+1-1+... now it oscillates between 1 and 0. So this series is bounded. Since they have different properties they clearly can't be equivalent or our definition of equality is blown up.

This is precisely why the concepts of sequences, infinite series, sequence of partial sums and limit of sequence of partial sums were developed and formalized.

>Ramanujan summation

Ignores all past formalization. It can generate reasonable results, but this is more an accident based on specific examples.

Bottom line, if the result looks too good to be true, it probably is false and you should explore why the failure occurred. If math is not consistent and reliable, it loses it's usefulness in real life.

but the -1/12 result is used in string theory

>but the -1/12 result is used in string theory

That is an argument against it, not for it.

I hope this is b8/pasta

Wait I thought the whole -1/12 thing was a meme

If you're claiming Ramanujan summation is not a well defined notion, then you're wrong.

Reading the infinite sum
"1+2+3+4+..."
to express the limit of it's partial sums as defined with the metric in analysis is just a social convention, like eating eggs for breakfast and not for dinner. This notion of sum just has more applications and is thus considered the primary one, but Ramanujans sum, that happens to evaluate to -1/12 for the sum of all natural numbers, is equally valid. Even if just 7 people in the world eat eggs to dinner, that doesn't make it wrong.

>Wait I thought the whole -1/12 thing was a meme

It's not a meme, it's just represented incorrectly.

The summation series does not equal -1/12

The y intercept of the summation series equals -1/12

As you can see here in the pic related.

I've seen that pic often, but has anybody ever found out what the curve is that's shown there? Like what's the value of the curve at the point 4.7 for example?
There's no point of referencing this picture without finding out what it actually shows - at best we know what it ought to evaluate to on integers.

why does -3c = 1-2+3-4 instead of 6-12-18-24?

Uhm, the curve is an average, or "Slope" representing the summation series:

1+2+3+4+5.. etc

...

im using this as my album cover. where do i pay you royalties?

So, I've heard that
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ⋯ = ζ(0) = −1/2 .
But that would imply that
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = 1 + ( 1 + 1 + 1 + ... )
x = 1 + x ,
which is nonsense.
1/2 = 1 + (-1/2)
1 = -1
Why the fuck do people think this is correct?

Should be
-1/2 = 1 + (-1/2)

>Hmm
>gross i hate piercings
>that shit looks like mutilation on her lips
>why cant i stop staring
>her jawline is sexy
>those cheeks are cute
>her eyes and hair are pretty
>she vapes
>i hate pretentious vapers but i cant stop looking at her
>replays video

It's a rap album?

So instead of going from x=1+x to 0=1 you add -1/2 and then multiply by 2 to get -1=1.

so much hatred inside of you

If infinity=-1/12 then the limit x->-1/2 of 1/x should equal 0

Just goes to show that the best kind of bait is the accurate kind

physicists on suicide watch

or not

>convince me why i should take math seriously.
If you watch Numberphile, you're doing no effort already so don't ask.

wo xD