tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post7012701204663893310..comments2020-07-06T06:11:47.911-04:00Comments on Physics Buzz: Correction: Does 1+2+3+4+ . . . =-1/12? Absolutely Not! (I think)APS Webmasterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05951833208918853453noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-74575047912316875102018-09-19T05:38:18.914-04:002018-09-19T05:38:18.914-04:00You are all wrong. The series equals -1/12
Zeta(...You are all wrong. The series equals -1/12<br /><br />Zeta(-1) is the slope (derivative) at the point zero (x=0) of a function f which equals:<br /><br />f(x) = sum(e^(nx),n,1,infinity)<br /><br />Search YouTube for "brian talks about differintegral zeta function"<br /><br />The future of math and physics is complex 'fractional' calculus and its connection to number theory.brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04076864722369802948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-30511385831678194572017-10-12T01:49:39.950-04:002017-10-12T01:49:39.950-04:00I was wondering if you ever thought of changing th...I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the layout of your website?<br />Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.<br /><br />But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.<br /><br />Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or 2 pictures.<br />Maybe you could space it out better?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-47236556931073660322017-07-20T20:37:32.450-04:002017-07-20T20:37:32.450-04:00Saved as a favorite, I love your web site!Saved as a favorite, I love your web site!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-70279757374557668312017-02-01T01:59:53.374-05:002017-02-01T01:59:53.374-05:00xdxdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-58077412610180122052016-09-05T15:18:44.114-04:002016-09-05T15:18:44.114-04:00What i think actually is the area under the curve ...What i think actually is the area under the curve calculated by sir cre gives the sum of infinite real numbers between 0 and -1 which has no relation with the sum of infinite NATURAL numbers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07620728734156767426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-77168854696345284862016-08-19T02:03:58.652-04:002016-08-19T02:03:58.652-04:00Une somme partielle s'arrête à n : Sn = 1 + 2 ...Une somme partielle s'arrête à n : Sn = 1 + 2 +... + n. On ne peut pas appliquer les propriétés de l'addition dans l'expression 1 + 2 + 3.... (sans fin) et c'est la raison pour laquelle on en donne une définition toute faite. <br />et tant qu'à faire, on choisit évidemment la plus intuitive, mais intuitive ou pas, c'est une définition et la cohérence interne des propriétés des séries numériques tient dans celle des propriétés des limite (quand n -> + infini), un point, c'est tout. Dès lors qu'une autre définition se présente et qu'elle produit un autre espace de raisonnement cohérent, elle est tout aussi valable dans son champ mathématique d'application. Tout prolongement analytique d'une fonction f initialement non définie en un point, qui attribue une valeur en ce point licitement en ce sens que la fonction n'interdit pas de le faire, est fondé. Attribuer la valeur (-1/12) ne pose aucun problème, c'est une définition aussi licite que celle qui consiste à dire que 1 + 2 +.... = lim Sn <br />(= + infini). Si les gens n'ont pas compris que l'addition est une loir de composition ''interne'' de R dans R ! et non de <br />R U {infini} dans R U {infini} ! et que par conséquent, toutes les propriétés de l'addition - l'associativité, l'existence d'un élément neutre ''0'', d'un symétrique (-x), la commutativité, la distributivité de la multiplication sur l'addition - n'ont plus de sens lorsque qu'on parle ''d'ajouter'' une infinité de termes, alors, c'est que les gens ne parlent pas de la même opération. Des propriétés dépendent des définitions que l'on donne aux choses, il ne faut croire que la chose a une essence bien définie avant qu'on la définisse nous-même ! Galilée007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-46351563800033892662016-07-18T22:44:09.067-04:002016-07-18T22:44:09.067-04:00In order to use negative numbers for the integral,...In order to use negative numbers for the integral, doesn't that require the problem to be the sum of all natural numbers including the negative ones? The left hand integral area cannot cancel the right hand area otherwise. The sum of all natural numbers from -x to x in the limit as x approaches infinity is -1/12?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07643571981577093658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-45930210920738404132016-06-23T21:38:47.554-04:002016-06-23T21:38:47.554-04:00Every term of Zeta(-1) is larger than Zeta(1), exc...Every term of Zeta(-1) is larger than Zeta(1), except the first which are both 1. Since Zeta(1) equals infinity (proven by the comparison test) -> Zeta(-1) is also infinity, due to the comparison test. QED.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14158100624682620455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-23719517474484259952016-05-03T06:05:08.464-04:002016-05-03T06:05:08.464-04:00Please delete "Dr Ebute"'s fraudish ...Please delete "Dr Ebute"'s fraudish nonsense.Ronnie Johanssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-87213465325309291072016-01-31T07:29:50.171-05:002016-01-31T07:29:50.171-05:00How can I find the following cardinalities?
|{{{1...How can I find the following cardinalities? <br />|{{{1},{2{3,4}},Emptyset}}Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06271549900932556170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-5329024475681613612016-01-29T21:00:55.425-05:002016-01-29T21:00:55.425-05:00The term above -143n^10 should be -143n^10/60. Ina...The term above -143n^10 should be -143n^10/60. Inadvertently the denominator 60 was omitted.Also the term n^c should be +n^c with<br />a plus sign inserted. Integrating this corrected function from 0 to -1<br />will now render the result of -1/12 = RZ(-13) = RZ(-1). Alan Walter,Sydney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-61066453964728837072016-01-27T20:39:48.124-05:002016-01-27T20:39:48.124-05:00Thanks for your youtube email reference.
RZ(-c) is...Thanks for your youtube email reference.<br />RZ(-c) is Riemann's Zeta value at -c = I(n=0to -1)[1^c+2^c+3^c+...+n^c]dn<br />Where I(n=0to-1) is the definite integral from 0 to -1(lower limit)<br />RZ(-1)=I(n=0to-1)[1+2+3+...+n]dn=I(n=0to-1)[(n/2)(n+1)]dn= -1/12evaluated.<br />RZ(-13)=I(n=0to-1)[1^13 +2^13 +3^13 +...+n^13]dn<br />RZ(-13)=I(n=0to-1)[n^14/14+n^13/2+13n^12/12-143n^10+429n^8/84-429n^6/60<br />+715n^4/132 -691n^2/420]dn= -1/12 on evaluation= -B(14)/14= -(7/6)(1/14)<br />Note1^c+2^c+3^c+...n^c for odd c values has factors of n(n+1)with zeros at 0,-1.<br />Anyone interested in an expression for the yet unsolved sum of the positive ODD<br />Zeta series Z(2n+1) in terms of π^(2n+1)? Alan Walter, Sydney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-82583774943718043442016-01-26T19:02:59.296-05:002016-01-26T19:02:59.296-05:00The author of this article is absolutely correct t...The author of this article is absolutely correct to point out that these supposedly mysterious values can be found by calculating the definite integral between 0 and -1 of the expression for the respective sum to the nth term (a.k.a. their partial sum expressions).<br /><br />This is also mentioned in this interesting 'response' video (it responds to the claims made in the video that is the subject of this discussion): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpfY8m2VLtc<br /><br />It shows what happens if you do the series manipulations with rigorously (hint - you do not get -1/12) and it explains why other methods get this -1/12 result.<br /><br />The response video claims this -1/12 result is the result of a mistake. The mistake is one of taking a function that applies to just positive whole numbers, manipulating it in ways that bring decimal numbers and negative numbers into play, and then interpreting the result as though it still relates to positive whole numbers.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-80255670835151540132015-05-15T23:28:19.595-04:002015-05-15T23:28:19.595-04:00Let's assume I gave you zero fucks. How many ...Let's assume I gave you zero fucks. How many fucks have I given you?Zerohttp://google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-25690231331532396872015-04-03T09:39:07.876-04:002015-04-03T09:39:07.876-04:00Interesting, except removing thingZ from bagA does...Interesting, except removing thingZ from bagA doesn't leave you with -thingZ in bagA. to do that you would have to remove 2*thingZ. Otherwise, taking thingZ out of bagA, and then replacing it would leave you with nothing in bagA. But clearly removing thingZ from bagA and replacing it shouldn't make thingZ dissappear. Buzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01468651273398333954noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-79593681954288315792015-04-03T02:30:03.587-04:002015-04-03T02:30:03.587-04:00I understand how puzzling it can be. Is zero a qu...I understand how puzzling it can be. Is zero a quantity or not? Is a negative number a quantity or not? Talking about apples and pears is a little worn out, I think.<br /><br />So, here:<br />There are two different bags; let's call them bagA and bagB. They are freshly made, and nothing has ever been put in them before.<br />Each bag has nothing in it. The bags are in an enclosed vacuum, so there is no air in them and no air outside of them.<br /><br />There are two different things; let's call them thingZ and thingY.<br />You put thingZ into bagA, and thingY into bagB.<br /><br /><br />You then have a bag - bagA - containing thingZ and a bag - bagB - containing thingY.<br /><br />If you remove thingZ from bagA and thingY from bagB, the bags will then be empty because the things that were in them have been removed.<br /><br />Because there used to be a thingZ in bagA, and one was taken out, there is a shortage of one thingZ.<br />BagA therefore contains -1 thingZ.<br />Likewise, bagB therefore contains -1 thingY.<br /><br />But all the time there was a thingZ in bagA, bagA also had no thingY.<br />Similarly, while there was a thingY in bagB, bagB also had no thingZ.<br />In fact, ever since the bags were made, there was also none of thingX, none of thingW, no tomatoes, onions, apples, bicycles, orang-utans or saxophones in them. None of any other thing, in fact, in either bag. And the same goes for what is outside of each bag either, because it was a vacuum. <br /><br />If it is true that zero is something that does exist, then zero is a complete lack of stuff. But we know that it wasn't always like that, because there used to be a thingZ and thingY in the bags. <br /><br />Regarding anything and everything else, there always was a complete lack of anything else in the bags, and everything outside the bags.<br />Because you cannot remove something that isn't there, bagA still contains zero thingY and bagB still contains zero thingZ - and zero everything else except as was stated in the paragraph before this one. And outside of the bags is still zero everything.<br /><br /><br />But the bags don't contain zero of everything, they contain -1 of one thing.<br /><br />Zero is more than -1. The bags therefore collapse under the pressure of absolutely nothing.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-68408065913565335862014-12-03T23:13:57.957-05:002014-12-03T23:13:57.957-05:00Hi .....
do you wants....idea from amateur...from ...Hi .....<br />do you wants....idea from amateur...from me or not...<br /><br />Easy...! Open Mind...<br /><br />Zeta Functions not importtant ....Harmonic important more!<br /><br />Zeta function that important Zeta(-1) and Zeta(-3)<br /><br />I show you....develop zeta in term cartoon.....and blinding set and anti<br />and i predict somethings in Higher Dimension...You can help me proof<br /><br />http://www.quora.com/Zeta-1-1-12-really-Sure-1<br /><br />http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-solution-to-sqrt-1+2-sqrt-2+3-sqrt-3+4-sqrt-4+5-sqrt-5+6-sqrt-6+<br /><br /><br /> sawat<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-53211526136765124952014-11-03T23:53:50.354-05:002014-11-03T23:53:50.354-05:00To be more specific, irrational mathematics('m...To be more specific, irrational mathematics('mathematics'), is not sustainable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-48197264220933133322014-10-31T05:13:26.546-04:002014-10-31T05:13:26.546-04:00I have posted a message explaining the dilemma.
Wh...I have posted a message explaining the dilemma.<br />What has happened here was inevitable, mathematics is not sustainable. <br /> <br />Here is the link to my message: http://marques.co.za/duke/news_win.htm<br /><br />It will not surprise me if this comment is censored (Moderated)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-42839263299568184762014-10-14T15:12:35.309-04:002014-10-14T15:12:35.309-04:001+2+3+4+... = -1/12 (R) where (R) is the Rumanujan...1+2+3+4+... = -1/12 (R) where (R) is the Rumanujan Summation. This is not a normal -1/12. It basically is a categorization of the series in question. It should be read, "the sum of one plus two plus . . . has a Rumanujan summantion of -1/12" (as opposed to "equals -1/12").<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan_summationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-57698068477674323172014-08-31T09:38:40.838-04:002014-08-31T09:38:40.838-04:00Contact a Great man on agbadado@gmail.com or call ...Contact a Great man on agbadado@gmail.com or call him on +2347060552255 who help me to solve my problems when my ex boyfriend was blackmailing me after trying many ways to stop him but it didn't work for me until i met this man who help me cast a spell that stop him for blackmailing me and now he is pleading forgiveness and i believe he can solve any problems you are having because he just solve mine.Shron Prysockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01877979003495320167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-55544368393731802522014-08-09T01:31:37.922-04:002014-08-09T01:31:37.922-04:00Valuable liveliness is also saved which you can se...Valuable liveliness is also saved which you can set aside to your family or to manually. Completing an <a href="http://www.way2college.com/online-distance-learning.htm" rel="nofollow">Online Distance Learning</a> course gives you more flexibility while studying over conformist classroom set up.way2 collegehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002354364018973597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-92126742618260668612014-06-02T01:58:01.523-04:002014-06-02T01:58:01.523-04:00No, zero is not in the real world.
Imagine that yo...No, zero is not in the real world.<br />Imagine that you have two bags, in one there is one apple and in the other you have one pear. Then we remove the apple and the pear out of the bags, now in one bag you have zero apples and in the other zero pears, but zero apples and zero pears have the very same properties, therefore they must be the same thing, as we know, pears and apples are not equal to each other, so it must be that zero is nothing but a concept that does not exist in the real world. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-11032092746463744522014-05-29T10:47:02.723-04:002014-05-29T10:47:02.723-04:00Area A = Area B since they both are infinitely lar...Area A = Area B since they both are infinitely large areas. That series diverges, you learned that in Cal2 or Math Physics of DiffEq. C'mon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35187314.post-25286400689852331302014-05-22T15:41:18.020-04:002014-05-22T15:41:18.020-04:00This article is superb, I love it. That infinite s...This article is superb, I love it. That infinite series thing really perturbed me when I first saw it but I couldn't see how to examine it more effectively such that I could get to the point that I wasn't perturbed by it any more. Watching you do it above now makes me annoyed I didn't have the idea of doing that myself. But the fact is I didn't. So simple, so insightful, so satisfying. Thanks for that and if you could now just solve every other annoying problem for me I would be most grateful ;o)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716386216210405161noreply@blogger.com