Math peeps explain this to me

[disappoint]

The negative natural numbers are an infinite set that "end" at -1.

Whoops. How'd that happen?

lol end at -1. Where did they start?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

lol end at -1. Where did they start?

How did it "end" at -1? I thought infinite sets were "never ending"? Is that true of the ordered set of negative natural numbers?

 

[disappoint]

How did it "end" at -1? I thought infinite sets were "never ending"? Is that true of the ordered set of negative natural numbers?

What happened? Your brain froze trying to answer the question? If they end at -1 then where do they start?

I'm not saying they end at -1. You are. In your imaginary little world where they do, where would they start?

 

[Rakehellion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

I can buy that S=1-1+1-1..... equals 1/2 but is there something in math that says you can shift one of the equations over one digit when adding to equations together? To me that seems where the flaw in this is. Maybe it is perfectly 'legal'. Can someone explain how if it is?

Well, the guy says right off the bat that he had to change the definition of infinity to make this whole thing work so that should have told you something.

The value of 1-1+1-1... is undefined. It's like taking the square root of -1. You can talk about it, but you can't calculate it.

Changing the value to 0.5 may be useful in physics, but not in math. To everyone else, it's just a thought exercise.

 

[Rakehellion]

and no, infinity is NOT a constant. a constant means that the value means the same thing everywhere. if that were the case, then infinity/infinity would equal 1, and it doesn't. it equals infinity, as that link i pasted shows.

The link you pasted says it's undefined. You didn't read your own link.

 

[disappoint]

Well, the guy says right off the bat that he had to change the definition of infinity to make this whole thing work so that should have told you something.

The value of 1-1+1-1... is undefined. It's like taking the square root of -1. You can talk about it, but you can't calculate it.

Changing the value to 0.5 may be useful in physics, but not in math. To everyone else, it's just a thought exercise.

Might be helpful to look at a physical real world example of this. Think of {1,-1+1-1...} as a square wave. It doesn't even matter if it ends. Will that square wave be exactly the same as a DC waveform that's constantly 0.5 for the same duration? Nope nope nope nope nope.

Put them on an oscilloscope, do they look the same? Nope.
Put them through a speaker, do they sound the same? Nope.
Connect them to a DC motor, do they spin it the same? Nope.

So they're not the same in the real world. In this universe.

So did they just prove that String Theory doesn't describe this universe?:sneaky:

 

[purbeast0]

The link you pasted says it's undefined. You didn't read your own link.

yeah it does, brainfart from typing all of the other obvious stuff.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What happened? Your brain froze trying to answer the question?

You don't get to ignore my question and then demand I answer yours.

If they end at -1 then where do they start?

What difference does that make?

I'm not saying they end at -1.

The point is that sets don't "end" or "start" whether they are finite or infinite. I repeat myself thusly, and like so...

Sets are not processes. They are objects. It's that simple.

You are. In your imaginary little world where they do, where would they start?

Where does the number 7 start? Where does it end?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Might be helpful to look at a physical real world example of this. Think of {1,-1+1-1...} as a square wave. It doesn't even matter if it ends. Will that square wave be exactly the same as a DC waveform that's constantly 0.5 for the same duration? Nope nope nope nope nope.

It absolutely matters that the set is infinite. That's what the math shows. You're basically just stating that it's impossible to draw the hypotenuse of an isoceles right triangle because the value of sqrt2 is irrational.

So they're not the same in the real world. In this universe.

You haven't represented the math in the real world, and you clearly do not understand the meaning of infinity.

So did they just prove that String Theory doesn't describe this universe?:sneaky:

If it were that simple it wouldn't even be a theory.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesàro_summation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_+_2_+_3_+_4_+_⋯

If all of that is wrong you geniuses need to be writing in to Wikipedia and correcting them.

 

[disappoint]

^Sounds like a politician doing math^

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

^Sounds like a politician doing math^

^ sounds like a fuckwit that doesn't have a rational argument ^

 

[disappoint]

I gave a rational argument. You rejected it. Now I laugh at you.

Is this your "bicycle"? What's the point?

 

[Baasha]

In a video about Ramanujan Summation, not a single word about Ramanujan!

While on the concept of infinity, invented by Indian mathematicians, read this paper by CK Raju (noted physicist/mathematician): Infinity

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I gave a rational argument. You rejected it. Now I laugh at you.

I didn't reject it, I refuted it. That is to say, I demonstrated it to be irrational.

So, no you did not give any rational argument, and you still haven't, and you won't, because one does not exist.

Is this your "bicycle"? What's the point?

You're posting puerile images in an academic discussion and simultaneously expect me to believe you give a single fuck about "the point"? You're dumber than I thought.

 

[Rakehellion]

Might be helpful to look at a physical real world example of this. Think of {1,-1+1-1...} as a square wave.

A square wave is a finite set of discrete elements with finite duration. Not infinite.

Like I said, good for physics, bad for math.

 

[disappoint]

A square wave is a finite set of discrete elements with finite duration. Not infinite.

Like I said, good for physics, bad for math.

The point was, even in the real world, {1,-1,+1,-1...} is not the same as 0.5, even if you did "stop the set somewhere" like they did. Which btw you aren't supposed to do with an infinite set. The posters above that said it does not converge into a single value but is undefined and divergent are correct.

My point was that it's bad for math and physics.

 

[disappoint]

I didn't reject it, I refuted it. That is to say, I demonstrated it to be irrational.

So, no you did not give any rational argument, and you still haven't, and you won't, because one does not exist.



You're posting puerile images in an academic discussion and simultaneously expect me to believe you give a single fuck about "the point"? You're dumber than I thought.

Your puerile arguments reminded me of some puerile images. Puerile in puerile out. You get what you give.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The point was, even in the real world, {1,-1,+1,-1...} is not the same as 0.5, even if you did "stop the set somewhere" like they did.

They didn't "stop the set somewhere." They summed it.

Which btw you aren't supposed to do with an infinite set. The posters above that said it does not converge into a single value but is undefined and divergent are correct.

No, they simply are not, and ample reasons have been given to establish that. You're simply gainsaying the mathematical proofs because you're a dumbass.

My point was that it's bad for math and physics.

Math doesn't have anything to do with physics.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your puerile arguments reminded me of some puerile images. Puerile in puerile out. You get what you give.

You've demonstrated quite abundantly that you do not understand the arguments. The fault is not with them, it is with you.

 

[disappoint]

Math doesn't have anything to do with physics.

You write with a fat crayon don't you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You write with a fat crayon don't you?

This oughta be good.

Please, explain what math has to do with physics. You've got no shortage of disagreements in this thread, but a complete dearth of arguments.

Put up or shut up time, dumbass.

 

[Matthiasa]

The point was, even in the real world, {1,-1,+1,-1...} is not the same as 0.5, even if you did "stop the set somewhere" like they did. Which btw you aren't supposed to do with an infinite set. The posters above that said it does not converge into a single value but is undefined and divergent are correct.

My point was that it's bad for math and physics.

They can be filtered to look the same at infinity.
True square waves are bad anyways due to all the harmonics.

 

[disappoint]

They can be filtered to look the same at infinity.
True square waves are bad anyways due to all the harmonics.

Filtered? Altered? Then it's not the same thing. I put on rose colored glasses and the sky is not blue anymore, the grass is not green anymore? That would be a big fat NOOO.

True square waves are bad? Are you aware that you wouldn't be able to post that without true square waves? No square wave no clock on your microprocessor, no computer, no internet, no faily faily bad argument posty posty.

You children arguing for the sake of argument are so cute. But oh so bad at it.

 

[disappoint]

This oughta be good.

Please, explain what math has to do with physics. You've got no shortage of disagreements in this thread, but a complete dearth of arguments.

Put up or shut up time, dumbass.

You know what would be absolutely hilarious? If you actually thought you were smart enough to call me dumbass while failing to grasp the concept of infinity even this far into the thread.

A little slow on the uptake there chuckles?