No Veeky Forums humor/ylyl thread

Right.

>explaining the joke
This is fucking stupid. You shouldn't spell out to newfags what the joke is. The original version with just the two tracks and no text is the goat

Ok, I guess now I can sleep at night at least.

Did you fucking add text to that joke?
You may as well put the ifunny watermark faggot

The real joke in OP's pic is that the person who made it is such a newfag that they know that ζ(-1) = -1/12 but don't know ζ(0) = -1/2

I actually got it from here and saved it to use as bait

my favorite hit single from Veeky Forums

Cauchy was a mistake

He really was.

>Daily reminder that Cauchy used the so called Cauchy-criterion before even properly proving it.

I call it the brainlet-criterion now.

i dont get it

...

...

did cauchy fucked you are wife?

Cauchy fucked with the only thing I care about, rigor.

>The Cauchy Criterion is named after the French mathematician Augustin
Louis Cauchy. Cauchy is a major figure in the history of many branches of
mathematics—number theory and the theory of finite groups, to name a few—
but he is most widely recognized for his enormous contributions in analysis,
especially complex analysis. He is deservedly credited with inventing the epsilon-
based definition of limits we use today, although it is probably better to view
him as a pioneer of analysis in the sense that his work did not attain the level
of refinement that modern mathematicians have come to expect. The Cauchy
Criterion, for instance, was devised and used by Cauchy to study infinite series,
but he never actually proved it in both directions.

He was a brainlet.

"requiring proof" is a concept that grows and evolves
many things were assumed to be true by great mathematicians of old times and they wouldn't have thought that they actually required a proof

rigor is cool, but it's a modern addition and in no way the only valid mathematics

>many things were assumed to be true by great mathematicians of old times and they wouldn't have thought that they actually required a proof

And you know what we call those mathematicians? Brainlets. We shoud credit all achievements and theorems to the people that formalized them, not those who first "showed" those theorems.

In case you don't know, it was Weierstrass who took Cauchy's Cours d'Shit and turned it into formal mathematics. I call the cauchy criterion the Weierstrass criterion for cauchy sequences now.

If you don't do the same then you are probably a brainlet as him.

>rigor is cool, but it's a modern addition and in no way the only valid mathematics

Did you really just fucking say this? That we can have mathematics without rigor? Fuck off, you retarded freshman. Holy shit. I am sorry you failed your intro to proofs class but there is no way around rigor, pal.

Daily reminder that shit like this happens:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_school_of_algebraic_geometry

But 1+1+1+... =-1, 2 with reimann's zeta function tho

Do you refuse your dinner, sir

>Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

Nice meme quote you got out I fucking love cancer.

>The quote above is in reference to Heaviside using mathematical operators that were not yet clearly defined by the mathematics community.

Topkek, what a brainlet. I would answer your question but I don't really have to entertain the questions of a brainlet. Confront me with a mathematician who wasn't retarded.

fucking kek

I don't even debate the necessity of rigor. I simply point out the terrible truth that definitions always came later. There would always have been a Cauchy, and always have been a Weierstrass, but without Cauchy there would be no Weierstrass.

>what a brainlet.
Heaviside didn't need to be pampered by an entire mathematics department. Mathematicians caught up to him, not the other way around.

I'll ask you again: do you refuse your dinner, sir

>without Cauchy there would be no Weierstrass.

I disagree. I think that with enough study of sequences one would eventually realize that converging sequences behave "Cauchy". Weierstrass would have realized it too and he would have rigorously established them.

After all, Weierstrass came with a proof of the Cauchy criterion because Cauchy did not even understand his own definition well enough to prove his theorem.

I mean, to this day I do not understand what happened to Cauchy. The proof just involves applying the triangle inequality. Was the triangle inequality too hard for Cauchy? I mean, why? Why would he not prove it.

Nowadays, proving the cauchy criterion is a standard problem in analysis books for newcomers. (I know because I learned through Abbot's Understanding Analysis). If a bunch of freshman cucks like me could prove the cauchy criterion then why couldn't Cauchy?

This really, unironically, makes me think.

Because hindsight is a hell of a drug, also he probably had more important shit to do than prove some shit that already worked, like having sex with women.

You've been misled by the hard formalism of modern mathematics. It's not the goal, it's not the purpose, it's just a tool. Mathematics is done with silly pictures and fuzzy notions, by idea first and proof later. Dry, finished topics where you merely deduce obvious things from amazingly convenient definitions like a robot are not how mathematics is done.

I would kill 0.999... people because that is less than 1

...

If you explain the joke it's not fucking funny anymore. Half the humor is in awarding yourself for being clever for figuring it out. That's why enigmatic jokes are funnier.

Literally delete this.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

done for now. i better get some (You)'s

I mostly just browse Veeky Forums keeping to myself because Im only in high school and most of this is way over my head but can someone explain how hell that ends up being -1/12

rude!

use

you're too young, but look up riemann zeta function
[math]
\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s} \\
[/math]
evaluated at negative one
[math]
\zeta(-1) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ \frac{1}{n^{-1}} =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ n = 1+2+3+\ ... \\
[/math]
but by analytic continuation
[math]
\zeta(-1) = -\frac{1}{12}
[/math]

Anyone have that screencap of the joke where someone tries to steal 1/12 of a dollar from you by keep giving you money?

You first show that there is a unique function [math]\zeta(s)[/math] defined on the complex plane (save a countable set of points) that agrees with the expression [math]\sum_{n\ge 1}n^{-s}[/math] whenever Re(s) > 1. Then you show that this complex function necessarily satisfies the following relationship with itself [eqn]\zeta(s) = 2^s \pi^{s-1} \sin(\pi s/2) \, \Gamma(1-s) \, \zeta(1-s)[/eqn]
It follows that [math]\zeta(-1) = -1/12[/math]. After that you go back and pretend [math]\sum_{n\ge 1}n^{-s}[/math] also makes sense for s = -1 and make erroneous claims.

...

Thank you, appreciate it.

...

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.

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

Do you even math, bro ? Rigor is needed for paper publication and/or when the results are deeply complex and/or subject to a lot of particular cases.

Any result where the counterexample(s) must be built ex-nihilo using whatever technique are informative and interesting, but any decent mathbro will call it pathological. Being pyschorigid only makes YOUR penis harder, smartlet.

you sound like a sophomore in undergrad just finishing up your first class on rings

fuck off you Berty Russ wannabe faggot

How would one multiply in binary without doing base conversion?

>1+1+x = 3
>x = 1
LOL FUCKING PHYSICISTS AMIRITE

1011x0110=10110+101100. For each ones digit in the right number you shift that many times and add.

>has shitty commentary on it

Based on that, is the decision based on algebraic or absolute value? Do you save more or less part of a negative person?

haha dude dank meeeme!

I didn't know you could save any one part of a human to begin with.

I mean, wouldn't that be stealing? Because it's the person's property.

for mu

Am I missing something or does this thing diverge and obviously has no finite answer

underageb&

Does this have something to do with a sphere

...

What you're missing is outlined here

It's from Abbot's book, am I right?

To his defense: If he's from Europe, chances are high that he's used to 1 in the shape of ´| and not just |
So his brain could only see two lines and not digits. It's damn hard to solve such a "riddle"

Psi function is usually orbitals of atoms.

indeed

I remember that thread, shit was unreal

...

...

Pretty good

mul arg1 arg2

Lets multiply these two:
11 * 100

We have 100 + 100 + 100.

100 + 100 is 1000
1000 + 100 is 1100.

That's 1100.

Yea, thats O(n) tho (n being arg1 in your example). Which is retardedly slow if you want to multiply 5000000 with 10000000 for example.
What you want to do is this: Because this is in O(log(n)) (or however you want to call your parameters).

To pick up your example you would do this:
100 * 11 = 100 * 10 + 100 * 1 = 1000 + 100 = 1100

...

...

L O S T
>Thank you enlightened one

fucking gold

I fucking love these.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>mfw I thought it was some double line symbol
>mfw I'm an engineer

...

...

...

...

...