They are teaching this in American Schools

youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
here you go you big fucking baby

the pic that saved /sci/

Attached: 1653044534822.jpg (1131x622, 126.2K)

Its wrong pseudoscience. Watched a video recently on it. It diverges of course to infinity.

How does that work lad? Like i is an imaginary number and is negative, distance cannot be negative.

Are they teaching this though? I doubt it.

It is insanely I correct. As the same method it uses to prove can arrive at any outcome

absolutely retarded take. these people deserve the end times they will receive.

Numberphile is a cool channel. I was watching that while I was taking a statistics class. Math can be fun and interesting, but the way I must have learned it through school, college makes it seem rote and challenging (at least for my brain type). The numberphile episode on the Nazi Enigma was pretty cool...

correct ur ass. U got no brain. I can use fucking infinity get any result i want. But still is fcking braindead plp really think this correct. Like some one use 100/0=1/0 and 100=1

I want stab imaginary numbers 56 times.

>They are teaching this in American Schools
>source: trust me, just get angry over this lie

highly dubious (jewbious mathematics)

Attached: njw_disputed.png (638x303, 24.16K)

Some real food for thought…any deeper insights or annotations on that pic ?

Kek

Made that mistake back during my early days of university when used i in the pythagoras formula.

No
youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA

The issue comes about from a misunderstanding of infinity. See what they do is they have one series go from 1-infinity and another go from 1-2(infinity) then then proceed to drop the two and make the second 1-infinity. They then proceed to add the two series even though they have literally halved the number of numbers in the second series. This mistake proceeds to make the sum of all positive numbers negative. To help enlighten you what is infinity minus infinity? Answer: any number positive or negative in existence. All depending on which specific infinity was subtracted from which specific infinity.

Tl:dr dumbasses with no knowledge of number theory get confused why their grade school view of infinity doesn’t work.

That's a silly attitude. Clearly 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1, many infinite sums have finite values even though no finite algorithm as you demand could ever exist
The equation in the OP is a stretch it comes from the definition of the zeta function as an infinite series, which is only valid for positive numbers, but zeta is also defined for negative numbers by different methods

i don tgeti it

Well that explains my bank account.

Oh man, wait until you find out about intersecting parallel lines

not even formally correct equation.
In this case not solvable.

What is '. . .'?

we don't use this is Germany.

we do use variables like x

never ' . . ..'

Attached: 1655166781138s.jpg (200x200, 6.42K)

It's an abstraction, where one is allowed to make geometric measurements using more/other numbers, for example members of a field or ring

>youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
>1-1+1-1 ... = 0.5
If you run the algorithm forever, the average value of the register containing the sum will be 0.5, if you do it using floating point numbers.

But that's retarded.

That's like saying that the result of "0+0+0+4" is 1, because that's the average partial result, the average state of the register.

>Because the sequence of partial sums fails to converge to a finite limit, the series does not have a sum.
>the left-hand side has to be interpreted as being the value obtained by using one of the aforementioned summation methods and not as the sum of an infinite series in its usual meaning.
So, it's not really the sum of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + etc to infinite.

i squared is equal to minus one so the square root of one suqared plus i squared is equal to zero.

Only when you go to an infinite number of terms. Any finite number of terms means the sum will be infinitesimally smaller than the convergent value. This is very important in physics as real space is constrained thus these numbers don’t quite hit their convergence and thus we don’t divide everything by 0.

This. If you’re using group theory, it’s necessary to define the group and rules you’re working with rather than using it as a cheap gotcha. It’s no different than claiming 2+2=11 and when people start squawking you smugly claim you were using base 3.

I despise Pilpul math. Clearly the sum of all positive numbers is not a negative number and any attempt to say it is will try to redefine what we understand either a sum or series of numbers is.
Its like leftists who argue 2+2=5.

It has something to do with a zeta function, which is a different sum. The sum of all natural counting numbers obviously diverges, and if you have something like alternating negatives/positives you can get a converging series. This is Calculus II level math.

If not, I'll ask OP to give me all the money in his bank account using his convergence theory, and I will give him back -1/12 of that.

What's the entire problem op, it's obviously more than you stated.

kikerphile is 100% onions and also kys

whats i

It's not correct, pop-sci faggot. Please explain analytic continuation to me. Please explain what a meromorphic function is. Please explain the reflection property for the zeta function. These are simple concepts but I am sure you don't know any of them. Therefore you have no idea what you're talking about. Stick to Numberphile comment sections, retard.

Implying the complex numbers are ordered. What a faggot.

Wrong usage of the pythagorean theorem. The hyperthenuse is the square root of 2.