You don't control the food you eat Corporations do. And you don't control your world view, the media does.


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

It was fun, but not something that made you say, "Woah, we're, like, totally living in the Matrix, dude!"

Liberty's Edge

Electric Wizard wrote:

1. Grow your own vegetable garden

2. Dig your own well for water
3. Widdle some dice
4. Eat and play D&D

... Freedom.

.

Its Whittle not widdle.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + ... (to infinity) = -1/12

How can you sum up positive numbers and get a negative result. Wacky.
I'm not sure you care, but this video summarizes the proof (in brief), and you can read more about the various methods used to reach the summation on its Wikipedia page.
Reminds me of the goofy math puzzles Martin Gardner used to put in Isaac Asimov magazine every month. He'd mathematically "prove" that you were older than your grandfather or something, usually by dividing by zero or using a normalized divergent series or whatever.

Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying. And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists. In fact, now I think it's a joke (maybe a left over april fools).

.


Sissyl wrote:
I dunno if eating DnD is the solution...

Especially 4E, if you rely the online tools you're really going to miss out on your fiber.


graywulfe wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:

1. Grow your own vegetable garden

2. Dig your own well for water
3. Widdle some dice
4. Eat and play D&D

... Freedom.

.

Its Whittle not widdle.

Public education produces mistakes like these.


Irontruth wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I dunno if eating DnD is the solution...
Especially 4E, if you rely the online tools you're really going to miss out on your fiber.

The Troll is back. I flagged him.

.

Scarab Sages

Electric Wizard wrote:

You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you

see on the TV.

It's like they have you trapped in a box.

If only I owned a TV.....

Spoiler:
I don't

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Electric Wizard wrote:

You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you

see on the TV.

It's like they have you trapped in a box.

.

So you're going to start your revolution on a gaming messageboard? Where you only see what the moderators allow you to post?


Electric Wizard wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I dunno if eating DnD is the solution...
Especially 4E, if you rely the online tools you're really going to miss out on your fiber.

The Troll is back. I flagged him.

.

Just curious, what exactly was flag worthy in that post?

It was a joke based on the eating of RPG's. See, most books are made out of paper. Paper is usually made out of wood, which like most plant materials contains some sort of fibrous substance. Now, eating wood (or wood based products) probably isn't healthy, but it's intended as a joke, because fiber is usually considered a valuable part of a diet. The joke here being that if you're using online tools to play a game, there's a distinct lack of paper (or in other words, fiber).

I'm not really sure what about that joke you find offensive. Cause I'm not making fun of 4E, or starting an edition war. I actually consider 4E to be a sort of landmark in game design. It had some serious flaws, but the intent and core concepts will probably influence significant aspects of game design for the next 10-15 years.

Or is it my mere presence that offends you?


Well, I found the joke funny when I saw it...

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Go hunting and fishing, raise a garden, and don't watch TV. /thatwaseasy


Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.

I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't define propaganda, but I like it when I see it, or, um, wait maybe that's supposed to be about another word that beins with "p"


Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.
I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.

But I totally saw it on the Scientific American website, so it must be true!

:P


MagusJanus wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.
I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.

But I totally saw it on the Scientific American website, so it must be true!

:P

I'm putting this "1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12" in the same category as Global Warming.

.


Electric Wizard wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.
I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.

But I totally saw it on the Scientific American website, so it must be true!

:P

I'm putting this "1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12" in the same category as Global Warming.

.

Finally! You understand the true nature of science at last.


Indeed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:

You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you

see on the TV.

It's like they have you trapped in a box.

If only I owned a TV.....

** spoiler omitted **

If you posted this from your laptop...

Spoiler:
Yes, you do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

Quote:
And think about it, adding positive numbers can never be negative.

Ah, yes. The old "Just think about it!" counter. Right up there with "But it's common sense!" and "But I totally saw it on Facebook so it must be true!"

Quote:
It is just a propaganda video put up by String Theorists.
I don't think you know what "propaganda" means.

Except that it IS bullcrap. 1-1+1-1... is a non-converging series, which means it does not sum to 1/2. Without that bit of mathematical misdirection the whole calculation falls apart.


Just so you know, the math works when applied to something like the Casimir Effect. The Casimir Effect was even successfully measured last year.

I'm not good enough at the math to tell these scientists and engineers are doing it wrong, and explain how their wrong math somehow produced correct, measured results. But to date, the math on this works. It's been part of math for over a century and has been used to make quite a few accurate predictions (Casimir Effect being one of them).


The same math can be used to prove 1=2. It's chicanery any actual mathematician will call b++&+**$ on. You should read my link.


Math is evil.


You've gotta put these glasses on....


Scott Betts wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:
Watch it and you realize nobody can understand what they are saying.

Except mathematicians.

hey! Don't forget theoretical physicists!

Ramanujan summation is not about adding numbers. It's about evaluating what I think of as 'different grades of infinity', so you can do further calculations using the Ramanujan sums instead of hauling around the divergent expressions.

Kinda like Feynman diagrams: you hide all the scary maths (the kind that is scary even for theroetical physicists) behind a deceptively simple interface so you can get on with solving the actual physics problem.


Electric Wizard wrote:


I'm putting this "1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12" in the same category as Global Warming.

as in: "it's not a solution, just a label we assign to help us understand and deal with a divergent system" ?

deep! very deep!


randomwalker wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:


I'm putting this "1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12" in the same category as Global Warming.

as in: "it's not a solution, just a label we assign to help us understand and deal with a divergent system" ?

deep! very deep!

And now I'm putting them in the same category.


MagusJanus wrote:
randomwalker wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:


I'm putting this "1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12" in the same category as Global Warming.

as in: "it's not a solution, just a label we assign to help us understand and deal with a divergent system" ?

deep! very deep!

And now I'm putting them in the same category.

Evil.

Scarab Sages

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Electric Wizard wrote:

You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you

see on the TV.

It's like they have you trapped in a box.

If only I owned a TV.....

** spoiler omitted **

If you posted this from your laptop...

** spoiler omitted **

Desktop at work.


If you have a job...

Spoiler:
They have you all day long in a box.

Scarab Sages

Sissyl wrote:

If you have a job...

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

I work for the government.

I know we're not that efficient.


meatrace wrote:
The same math can be used to prove 1=2. It's chicanery any actual mathematician will call b%@&$&#* on. You should read my link.

The problem is it isn't chicanery.

Some more talk about the function.

At the end he talks about how the Reimann Zeta Function can be used to accurately predict the number of prime numbers within a certain range.

Again, the Reimann Zeta Function was used to predict the Casimir Effect, which has now been proven to exist and is measurable.

There is no debate among mathematicians about the existence, utility or functionality of the Reimann Zeta Function.

If it helps, if you plot out the 1+2+3+4... on a standard graph, it plots out the curve of a parabola. That parabola intersects the y-axis at -1/12.

Here's some more info explaining the function.

Theoretical predictions about quantum electrodynamics (electromagnetism) have been amazingly accurate.

One thing to note though, is that there are major aspects of the Reimann Zeta Function that are unproven. It works, it predicts numerous aspects of reality and is very important, but we don't know why or how. That's why the hypothesis involving non-trivial 0's is on the list of mathematical hypothesis is still up for grabs for a $1 million prize, if someone can either prove or disprove it.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh look, math rules lawyers.

Liberty's Edge

As it was explained to me by a friend whos a math professor, just presented cold with the simple proof it's kind of a mathematical party trick.

That doesn't make it chicanery or wrong. Just that it's a simple and 'weird' application of some very, very complicated mathematical principles and theories.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All this math, I feel like I'm watching the Simpsons.


Sissyl wrote:

If you have a job...

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
I work at night.

Irontruth wrote:
meatrace wrote:
The same math can be used to prove 1=2. It's chicanery any actual mathematician will call b%@&$&#* on. You should read my link.

The problem is it isn't chicanery.

Here is an article with a bunch of mathematicians and physicists agreeing with me.

My favorite bit:

Smithsonian wrote:
So, does 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5.... = -1/12? Yes, but only if, to you, an equal sign means something other than “is equal to.

In other words, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too bad you didn't read one of the sources for that article.

He starts off pretty incredulous, then he shows how he did the math. Once he does, he realizes that he was mistaken and begins to realize what it is they're talking about.

They are saying "=" is "=".

The problem is that you're reading "=" as "the sum".

A Zeta function is not a "sum", it's a "value". Plugging in the equation returns a "value". For 1+2+3+4... that value is -1/12. The SUM is infinite. But since lots of equations give us a sum of infinite, what value is there in labeling THIS equation with a ∞?

1+2+3+4... = ∞
1+4+9+16... = ∞

Both equations return the same SUM. But using just that sum, you can't describe anything different about the equations, even though they are clearly different.

The zeta function is one way in calculating those equations and showing how they are different. It's been useful in modern physics in two ways:

1) You can discard infinities when they aren't useful. Basically, if you have an equation and one possible result is infinity, you can ignore it and use the other aspect of the equation. This then can be useful and actually produce results that are measurable (both in theory and in practice).

2) It allows you to label and actually work with different sums of infinity and make them interact with one another. What happens when you subtract infinity from infinity? Well, it depends on which infinities you're working with it turns out. Not all infinities are created equal. It sounds silly from an arithmetic standpoint, but in terms of quantum physics, it's important... and again is producing testable results.

"=" does not always mean "equal to"
"=" does mean "completed function"

Which gets to the other aspect of the communication problem. A reimann zeta function is not written out...

s1=1+2+3+4...

but rather it's written out more like this:


Σ k^-s for Re(s)>1 = [zeta*](s)
k=1

But that's a whole lot harder to explain to someone who doesn't have years of training in understanding math. So in the video, they use the first one, because it's simpler, though it doesn't necessarily follow the rules you're used to for arithmetic. It's much easier and simpler to follow along if you aren't used to the much more complex symbols though. It's not intended to be the actual, complex math, but rather an over simplification of what is going on so that the uninitiated can follow along with the general idea.

*there isn't an alt code for the zeta symbol, so I just wrote it out.


Electric Wizard wrote:

You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you

see on the TV.

It's like they have you trapped in a box.

.

And exactly how are we even having this conversation? shifty eyes Did the media tell you to start this thread?


Irontruth wrote:

Too bad you didn't read one of the sources for that article.

He starts off pretty incredulous, then he shows how he did the math. Once he does, he realizes that he was mistaken and begins to realize what it is they're talking about.

Apparently you didn't read the article you just linked.

Heck, the title of the article you link as evidence is "Correction: Does 1+2+3+4...=-1/2? Absolutely Not (I Think)"

I could go on and quote a dozen more places in the article which you linked where it disagrees with your assertion, but it doesn't matter since we're no longer talking about the same thing.

All I've ever said in this back and forth is those numbers do not SUM to -1/12. On which you seem to now be agreeing. The Numberphile video, which really threw gasoline on this fire and prompted debate among physicists and mathematicians far smarter than either of us, specifically uses the term sum, or "when added up", so they are most certainly in error. They don't even provide a zeta function, just + signs.

Which is precisely why it's chicanery. They present it as one thing, as if it's simple math that the average droog just doesn't savvy rather than as a very specific and rarified meaning, which it does.

I think my point stands.


No, they aren't in error.

That's the thing, the math they did works. It has useful, real world applications. It makes predictions that are then measured and found in nature.

For you to claim they are in error, you will need to show that Einstein was wrong.

Bose-Einstein statistics are used in a number of things (and rely on the Reimann Zeta Function). One of them is for a thing called Bose-Einstein Condensate. Their math predicted certain behaviors of gases at near absolute zero temperatures. Later experiments have revealed more complex behaviors, but their predictions were true (they just weren't the complete story).

An interesting thing is that this math also predicts a lot of results from 'random' situations. Particularly relationships within random networks. The math behind the behavior of Bose gases, also predicts the structure of a social network. It also predicts the structure of the internet.

A mathematical model of the internet done using Bose-Einstein statistics (again, using this function that you are claiming is in error) accurately predicts the ACTUAL structure of the nodes within the internet and how information is passed between them.

A paper talking about complex networks.

Feel free to hold yourself to the same standard I've seen you demand of others recently.

Numberphile was not in error. They weren't not necessarily clear in what they were doing, causing confusion, but they math that they were presenting is very sound and has been extremely useful in physics for nearly a century.


Electric Wizard wrote:

You can only eat what they sell at the store, and you only know what you

see on the TV.

It's like they have you trapped in a box.

It's worse than you realize. We all know so-called "Free" masons are a major link in the global one/new world conspiracy, but did you know that they are also L.A.R.P.ers?

That's right, the shadow conspiracy that controls the world is run by L.A.R.P.ers. Weep for what future may come.

Spoiler:
Parody. I don't actually mind larpers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

No, they aren't in error

That's the thing, the math they did works. It has useful, real world applications. It makes predictions that are then measured and found in nature.

For you to claim they are in error, you will need to show that Einstein was wrong.
...

This is why Irontruth is nicked named 'The Goal Post Mover'.

.


When you get off the sidelines and move onto the field, yes, the goal posts do appear to shift. In reality though, they've been in the same spot the whole time.

Just because I said something about the topic that YOU didn't realize before, does not mean I've moved the goal posts.


Irontruth wrote:
No, they aren't in error.

Yes, they are. You even admitted as much earlier, though you don't seem to realize you did. I'll even quote you:

Irontruth wrote:


They are saying "=" is "=".

The problem is that you're reading "=" as "the sum".

A Zeta function is not a "sum", it's a "value". Plugging in the equation returns a "value". For 1+2+3+4... that value is -1/12. The SUM is infinite. But since lots of equations give us a sum of infinite, what value is there in labeling THIS equation with a ∞?

Emphasis mine.

And yet, the video is called "Sum of natural numbers" and they present the math as the sum of all numbers. Now, I just quoted you saying, literally, "The SUM is infinite." And that the calculation represented is not a sum, but a value. I agree.

That' is the only thing I've been saying. All the rest of the stuff you've been spouting? Fine. Sure. I won't argue it. All I've been arguing is that the SUM is not -1/12, and that, as such, anyone who says it is is misrepresenting the higher level math involved. In other words, they are incorrect.

You continue to disagree because...I guess you like to argue?


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Until your wellpump goes out. Or you get waterlogged. Or you have to wash your labcoat at the laundrymat because the well water adds a slight brownish tinge to your whites.

It's a lot more romantic sounding than it is.

Wow, you need a pump filter, a water softener, and a pressure tank. I've had well water for the last 17 years. Best stuff ever.

The Exchange

The 1+2+3+.... thing works. If you redefine what just about every symbol in it means. In the sense of adding numbers (the kind of numbers we normally think about when reading "1" or "17"), you won't get -1/12, and that's insanely easy to prove.

In the videos I've seen that try to explain that proof with "normal" math they all do a serious logic error - they first assume that the sum of all natural numbers converges to a finite number, and then prove that the number is equal to -1/12. However, from a false assumption you could prove anything, so that proof is meaningless.

The ACTUAL proofs of this mathematical identity all start with redefining what the convergence of a sum means. Many of them redefine numbers, too, and some of the redefine the + symbol.

In short, we can all rest assured that what we think of as the sum of all natural numbers is NOT -1/12. Rather, the sum equivalent action over a field of number equivalents yields a -1/12 equivalent result.


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
No, they aren't in error.

Yes, they are. You even admitted as much earlier, though you don't seem to realize you did. I'll even quote you:

Irontruth wrote:


They are saying "=" is "=".

The problem is that you're reading "=" as "the sum".

A Zeta function is not a "sum", it's a "value". Plugging in the equation returns a "value". For 1+2+3+4... that value is -1/12. The SUM is infinite. But since lots of equations give us a sum of infinite, what value is there in labeling THIS equation with a ∞?

Emphasis mine.

And yet, the video is called "Sum of natural numbers" and they present the math as the sum of all numbers. Now, I just quoted you saying, literally, "The SUM is infinite." And that the calculation represented is not a sum, but a value. I agree.

That' is the only thing I've been saying. All the rest of the stuff you've been spouting? Fine. Sure. I won't argue it. All I've been arguing is that the SUM is not -1/12, and that, as such, anyone who says it is is misrepresenting the higher level math involved. In other words, they are incorrect.

You continue to disagree because...I guess you like to argue?

Except that isn't the only thing you've been saying. You've called it chicanery.

You've called it misdirection.

You've used words that are synonyms for deceit, dishonest, and fraud.

Are you standing by that analysis? That this isn't actually math, but some sort of fraud presented to look like math? Because that's what I've been going on about. Showing how this is actually a very important function in math and has useful applications, it doesn't just work as some sort of party trick, but can actually be used to produce results in the real world, or even accurately predict results of phenomenon.

So which is it, is your problem...

A) That they should have been clearer in their video title
or
B) That they're frauds and they aren't actually presenting real math

Because if it's A, well, the conversation is done. I agree, they could have been clearer.


Fishy crackers! Quiet duckie!


Irontruth wrote:


Except that isn't the only thing you've been saying. You've called it chicanery.

You've called it misdirection.

You've used words that are synonyms for deceit, dishonest, and fraud.

Are you standing by that analysis? That this isn't actually math, but some sort of fraud presented to look like math? Because that's what I've been going on about. Showing how this is actually a very important function in math and has useful applications, it doesn't just work as some sort of party trick, but can actually be used to produce results in the real world, or even accurately predict results of phenomenon.

So which is...

Like I said. Over and over again. Presenting it as a sum is deception. That's all I've said, even in the posts you quote back at me. THAT'S what's chicanery, because they pretend to be providing a proof for something when indeed they are not. That IS deception.

Numberphile is generally a very interesting web show, but the producers tend to be more interested in showing "a neat trick" and relying on shorthand than explaining the higher level math they delve into. As such, yes, it is a fraud and does a massive disservice both to the mathematicians (and physicists) they are representing and to the general public.

51 to 100 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / You don't control the food you eat Corporations do. And you don't control your world view, the media does. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.