Does negative one twelfth equal infinity?

Does negative one twelfth equal infinity?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d6c6uIyieoo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sum1234Summary.svg
youtube.com/watch?v=kwI-nIXMa5M
youtube.com/watch?v=uH-AV1Jk2_8
arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9702052.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

In some circumstances -1/12 can be substituted in for an infinite series to come up with a solution to a problem. This does not mean -1/12 = infinity or any other idiotic bullshit you may have heard.

Get over this already

youtube.com/watch?v=d6c6uIyieoo

What does your picture mean?

Why would 4 dimensional space with 1 dimensional time be unstable? Unstable with current laws or unstable with all possible laws?

Also why isn't the graph symmetric? Is there any difference between space and time dimension?

Google for the Anthropic_principle#Spacetime wikipedia article.
Anyway in [1Time,(3>)Space] orbits aren't stable. For example Earth would either spiral right into the sun, or it would grow indefinitely far from the sun. The same way "solar systems" aren't stable, atoms aren't stable either.

>posting an image more interesting than your actual post
Newfag.

The only conventional difference that people name for a time dimension is that things only travel in one direction through it, but electron aka positron (singular) can travel both directions.

>The only conventional difference that people name for a time dimension is that things only travel in one direction through it, but electron aka positron (singular) can travel both directions.

What does that mean exactly? And I mean... Isn't it better to say it can only travel in one direction? One direction is an electron, the other it's a positron.

>For example Earth would either spiral right into the sun, or it would grow indefinitely far from the sun. The same way "solar systems" aren't stable, atoms aren't stable either.
Interesting. Can you link me to scientific papers on this topic so I can learn about it in more detail?

No, sorry. I remember hearing about this when I used to study physics. In class and some video lectures as well.
Check Bertrand's Theorem though. The notion of "effective potential" is also extremely useful. I think to prove a simpler form of Bertrand's we used Virial's Theorem.

This link is interesting, just google: "askamathematician What would life be like in higher dimensions?"

>tfw you don't live in tachyonic space

>0 dimensional spacetime
How the hell would that work?

>How the hell would that work?
Rather simply.

Pardon my brainlet-ness but how on earth is 2 time dimensions with 1 spatial dimensions "too simple?"

what is the mathematical meaning of the $ symbol. is it the barnette integral?

kek'd

meme is old but it checks out

How would a spacetime have more than 1 time dimension?

no, it's just a bump on the way to infinity

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

[math] \displaystyle
\zeta \neq \Sigma
[/math]

youtube.com/watch?v=kwI-nIXMa5M

youtube.com/watch?v=uH-AV1Jk2_8

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9702052.pdf

>that second video

This might be the most brainlet thread on sci at the moment.

>the bible quote taken out of context at 11:00
it doesn't even make sense in the text WITHOUT the context, let alone with it