Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 10:07:33 UTC No. 16271316
>>16271313
Physicists are clueless liars and frauds who don't understand anything they do. They constantly claim false "theorems" without proof and make mathematical statements that are not even wrong but meaningless.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 10:34:26 UTC No. 16271339
>>16271313
>>16271316
>u cannot know nuffin
Back to your philosophy department, plebs.
bodhi at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 10:49:18 UTC No. 16271352
>>16271339
my dude, it is literally over, you lost. Exit with some grace
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 18:04:22 UTC No. 16271720
>>16271313
Gemerald
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:10:52 UTC No. 16271871
>>16271316
>t. failed physics ph.d thesis defence
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:02:49 UTC No. 16271946
>>16271871
Never was a physics candidate. Just saw numberphile physicists claiming how 1+2+3+..... = -1/12 is an actual theorem in math (it's not), and reading various textbooks like Landau&Liftchitz, and Goldstein, which are constantly praised by physicists but are full of elementary mistakes and plain nonsense.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:45:22 UTC No. 16271999
>>16271313
Physicist bros... we got too cocky
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:49:11 UTC No. 16272006
>>16271946
zeta(-1) = -1/12 is an actual theorem in math
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:55:56 UTC No. 16272019
>>16272006
zeta(-1) is not 1+2+3+4+.....
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:59:55 UTC No. 16272023
>>16272019
Why not?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:16:22 UTC No. 16272060
>>16272023
Because 1+2+3+4+... is a series that converges to infinity, and zeta(-1) is -1/12. -1/12 is not infinity.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:18:00 UTC No. 16272062
>>16272023
because the zeta function is only defined for Re(s)>1
at best you could discuss what its analytical continuation does
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:22:13 UTC No. 16272068
>>16272060
>converges
>to infinity
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:23:34 UTC No. 16272072
>>16272062
The analytic continuation is still called zeta function. Your grasping at semantic straws.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:24:50 UTC No. 16272075
>>16272072
hmm yes you must be right then
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:32:33 UTC No. 16272084
>>16271999
https://www.earth.com/news/dark-mat
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:34:52 UTC No. 16272087
>>16272068
It's common in real analysis to talk about the two point compactification of real numbers. Convergence to infinity/-infinity is a useful concept that is distinct from divergence.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:39:03 UTC No. 16272095
>>16272087
But the zeta function is complex.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 22:40:56 UTC No. 16272098
>>16272095
I don't care.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 00:53:24 UTC No. 16272266
>>16271313
And the hobbyists BTFO both with comparatively little education.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:11:26 UTC No. 16272482
>>16271313
Real progress is made in math every year, while Physicists have been stuck without any real progress for decades.
Perhaps it's completely due to the subject matter, perhaps it's because Physics is harder than Math, but I think I have more reasons to respect mathematicians than physicists.
I especially dislike the physicists who seem to be in a perennial tour of interviews to share their ideas or theory of anything which is untestable and for which they have no evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1B
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:31:29 UTC No. 16272503
>>16271946
>1+2+3+..... = -1/12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bea
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10981
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:32:57 UTC No. 16272504
>>16272482
>Real progress is made in math every year, while Physicists have been stuck without any real progress for decades.
this is because there're infinite amount of math left out there while in physics there is only a few knots left in the model of the universe to tune. those are the hardest one to fit tho.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 05:54:58 UTC No. 16272521
>>16271946
>the Landau schizo is still at it
kek, I remember you. 2 years ago you got filtered by Landau's writing style and started spamming physics threads, desperately attempting to devalue those books. Let me guess: you're still stuck at the part where he introduces the Lagrangian of a free particle? LMAO
>physicists claiming how 1+2+3+..... = -1/12 is an actual theorem in math (it's not)
It's called Ramanujan summation. It's very useful for studying divergent series.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 16:21:15 UTC No. 16272907
>>16272521
>kek, I remember you. 2 years ago you got filtered by Landau's writing style and started spamming physics threads, desperately attempting to devalue those books
Yup, that was me. I made a few threads about Landau's books, asking why they were so popular given how unrigorous and full of nonsense they are. The fact that nobody was able to explain mathematically what Landau was talking about and only insulted me, I think demonstrated my point. You view it as being filtered, I view it as being confused (as was everyone else in those threads, given that nobody was able to explain it). It seems that the only ones who are not filtered by those books are shallow readers who don't actually care to figure out what the author is attempting to say.
>Let me guess: you're still stuck at the part where he introduces the Lagrangian of a free particle?
I haven't tried to read the book further than that given how nonsensical and dumb the book was up to that point. I already know some classical mechanics from other actually good books and university courses, so I doubt reading this schizophrenic text will be of any use.
>It's called Ramanujan summation
Ramanujan summation is a thing but but nowhere in the videos did they refer to it. They just talked about it as a regular sum. In analysis, it's useful to know that a sum a_k converges to infinity. It's a concept distinct from divergence. For example, there's a theorem in analysis that if a_k is a sequence of positive terms that coverges to 0, then given that a_0 + a_1 + ... = infinity, then for any real number b there exists a sequence b_n of elements of {-1, 1} such that sum a_n * b_n = b
Thus both Ramanujan summation and the usual unqualified summation give useful, distinct meaningful answers to the expression.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:27:20 UTC No. 16273185
>>16272907
Didn't even read; not gonna have a discussion with a serial shitposter. It's only amazing to return to this shithole years later and see the same one mindbroken undergrad spamming the same monotonous drivel only to stirr shit up. Meanwhile you refuse to debate it on one of the /sci/-related discords.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:30:38 UTC No. 16273187
>>16271313
>About a great deal
Inertia goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 21:22:12 UTC No. 16273243
>>16273185
Not a shitposter. My posts are carefully considered and true unlike yours. Clearly you have a strong attachment to those books, and feel yourself insulted when I critique them. However, you shouldn't be so upset. I critique it from a mathematical perspective for not being rigorous and not making sense mathematically. However, physicists aren't supposed to understand math (a lot of them clearly don't, as you demonstrate), only to apply it algorithmically to the problems that they care about.
I'm not interested in debate, as the topic has been settled as far as I'm concerned. Among all the people praising the book, nobody has been able to provide a coherent explanation, meaning none of them were actually able to understand what they read. And that's ok. Plenty of people enjoy obscurantist, nonsensical literature, nothing wrong with that. It was just funny to observe how bad physicists are at following arguments and thinking carefully.