Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:36:25 UTC No. 16163400

Guy single-handedly fucked numberphile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuIIjLr6vUA

Ramanujan was based though

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:37:27 UTC No. 16163401

>>16163391
Normies do not understand anything about an infinite series anon, and most don't know much about finite ones either.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:19:54 UTC No. 16163440

>>16163400
>Ramanujan was based though
how's the weather in Calcutta?

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:01:56 UTC No. 16163495

>>16163440
You need to be 18 or older to use this site

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 05:17:56 UTC No. 16163587

>muh analytic continuation
This is what "complex number" ideologists unironically believe.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 05:38:16 UTC No. 16163606

>>16163391
that an Indian man can be intelligent?

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 07:52:53 UTC No. 16163673

>>16163400
what an outdated video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beakj767uG4
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10981

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 17:06:05 UTC No. 16164180

>>16163440
pretty good.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 20:16:02 UTC No. 16164549

>>16163391
this one is probably wrong

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 20:18:08 UTC No. 16164553

Obvious wrong, but because a mathematician did it, it's right. And it also developed a new sub branch of maths lmao

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 20:28:33 UTC No. 16164578

>>16163391
You are too retarded to understand what is going on there.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 21:34:18 UTC No. 16164701

>>16164578
you are too retarded to realise that the math we have is entirely man made.
so yes it is susceptible to mistakes.
there's proof 1=-1,does it make it true? hell no.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 23:05:58 UTC No. 16164893

>>16163391 Srinivāsa Aiyangār Rāmānujan (ஸ்ரீனிவாஸ ஐயங்கார் ராமானுஜன்) was kino.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 23:16:22 UTC No. 16164901

It doesn't equal -1/12. If you redefine basic algebra so you can assign non-convergent values to symbols then yes, but all of math collapses into madness if you permit this.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 23:53:05 UTC No. 16164947

>>16164701
>there's proof 1=-1,does it make it true? hell no.
1) no there isnt.
2) if we couldnt ever distinguish between true and false statements in math, then math would be pointless. you arent allowed to say that some proofs are technically correct but dont count because you dont like them. either state that the proof is erroneous or accept the conclusion.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 00:28:33 UTC No. 16164990

>>16164901
But it works

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 00:40:18 UTC No. 16165005

>>16164947
e^(iπ) + 1 = 0
e^(iπ) + e^(iπ)^2 = 0
-e^(iπ)^2 = e^(iπ)
1 = -1

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 01:03:04 UTC No. 16165030

>>16165005
e^(iπ)^2 ≠ 1

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 01:12:42 UTC No. 16165042

>>16165005
>-e^(iπ)^2 = e^(iπ)
>1 = -1
I think you're just confusing yourself by excluding parentheses. (e^(iπ))^2 is 1 (which is a fact you use yourself), so both sides of this equation are -1, there's no contradiction.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 01:49:45 UTC No. 16165079

>>16165030
based

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:04:43 UTC No. 16165090

>>16165005
welp, you fucked up the proof. ignoring that, the flaw is that f(x)=x^2 is not an injective function.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:14:55 UTC No. 16165102

>>16165030
>-1^2 ≠ 1
lmfao dumb
>>16165042
-(e^(iπ))^2 = -(e^(iπ)^2) = -1(e^(iπ)^2) = (-(1)e^(iπ)^2) = (-e^(iπ)^2) = -e^(iπ)^2 = 1

>>16165090
Based. Nobody should be injective or boosted.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:26:20 UTC No. 16165109

>>16164901
way to show your outdated knowledge >>16163673

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:53:10 UTC No. 16165140

>>16165102
>>-1^2 ≠ 1
>lmfao dumb
Except that you are the dumb one.
e^iπ^2 = e^(i^2*π^2) = e^(-π^2)

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 02:58:48 UTC No. 16165146

>>16163391
Wtf are you even asking? This is no different than the proofs that 1=2 or whatever. It's just your average "using correct math with incorrect assumptions returns contradictory results" thought experiment. I know this is a shitpost thread, but I don't understand what there is to "buy" about this.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 03:23:01 UTC No. 16165165

>>16165146
here is something new for you to learn >>16163673

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 03:43:30 UTC No. 16165188

>>16165102
>-(e^(iπ))^2 = -(e^(iπ)^2) = -1(e^(iπ)^2) = (-(1)e^(iπ)^2) = (-e^(iπ)^2) = -e^(iπ)^2 = 1
Again, you're falling victim to your own ambiguous notation. Written properly, your chain of equalities looks like this:
>-(e^(iπ))^2 = -1 * (e^(iπ))^2 ?= (-1 * e^(iπ))^2 = (-(e^(iπ)))^2 = 1
And clearly the ?= step is incorrect since -(a^2) is not equal to (-a)^2 in general. No more (You)s until you're honest about your intended order of operations.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 04:03:54 UTC No. 16165209

>>16165102
-1^2 = -1
retard

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 04:17:19 UTC No. 16165220

>>16163400
Pretty compelling

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 07:11:22 UTC No. 16165421

you retards do realize that math is made up right?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 08:46:16 UTC No. 16165509

>>16163400
>debunk video
>says all the statements made were wrong
>the very first statement made by himself is wrong
You can't say that sum of natural numbers is equal to infinity - infinity is not a number.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 19:47:08 UTC No. 16166238

>>16165509
He explains later in the video how when infinity is involved, the meaning of the equals sign will change depending on the context

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:46:33 UTC No. 16167100

>>16166238
No, he doesn't.
Series is divergent, therefore has no value.

Unless you're accepting different more generalized definitions - but then you may as well accept the one where 1+ 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12

Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 11:14:01 UTC No. 16167125

>>16167100
as you should >>16163673