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.
Bolded emphasis mine.
Please provide evidence that they were not talking about an actual mathematical proof or that the proof serves no function in mathematics.
Clearly because I have no ability to think for myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This only proves my "math is evil" theory....
Bolded emphasis mine.
Please provide evidence that they were not talking about an actual mathematical proof or that the proof serves no function in mathematics.
Something has addled your brain. I didn't say what you're asking me to show evidence for. Do I have to do this step by step?
We have both agreed that the SUM of all natural numbers is infinity, not -1/12, yes?
We both agree (we don't have to though, it's there in the video title) that they are presenting the calculation as the sum of all natural numbers.
Right?
If I had a video called "Cats cats cats" and it was a video of a dog, that would be misleading. They have a video called "Sum of natural numbers" which presents calculations that do not represent the SUM of natural numbers.
That is misleading. Deceptive. False.
EDIT: The last 3-4 posts of mine have just been repeating the same thing over and over. Why is this so hard to understand IT? It feels like I'm arguing with Andrew R.
Edit:
Please just make it super simple and clear for me so I know where you stand, which option better represents your opinion on the matter:
A) They misspoke, using terms that were confusing and unclear, leaving you with a false impression
or
B) They're charlatans and this isn't really math
So, you two do this to one another too. Interesting...
So, you two do this to one another too. Interesting...
Yeah, we've tried to tell you that we aren't JUST singling you out and trying to make YOU frustrated, everyone gets this.
Heh. Comforting, in some distant way, I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I propose that, next time, we have a three-way argument on the definition of "is."
Indeed.
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.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.
If you've had the same pump and motor in your well for 17 years, you'd best start putting some money aside to replace them. Pumps and motors don't last forever, and are expensive to replace.
Also, I'm willing to bet, 'waterlogged' is something that happened to his pressure tank. It probably lost its 'air-cushion'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Bolded emphasis mine.
Please provide evidence that they were not talking about an actual mathematical proof or that the proof serves no function in mathematics.
Chiming in here. The Numberphile proof is incorrect. They base an entire proof on a false premise (they start out by assuming that the sum of all natural numbers converges to a finite number, and then derive that the number is -1/12. However, F -> T is every bit as correct as F -> F, which is why their "proof" does not prove that the sum of all natural numbers i -1/12). Their proof serves no function in mathematics. I also find it hard to believe that they are unaware of such a simple logical mistake. Hence, I must agree with Meatrace. The Numberphile video is certainly deceptive. The "damage control" of having to explain this to, hmm, every single person I know outside of the university (and several IN the university) took weeks.
EDIT: and I want to stress the point that I'm not saying they came up with some nonsense and posted it on the internet. I am fully aware that under different definitions of summation, numbers and "+" symbols you can arrive at different values for the "sum" of all "natural numbers". What the numberphile video did, though, was attempt to pass off that result as if you could derive it using the most common and basic definitions of a series sum. That's simply incorrect, and they gave a proof of so obviously lousy mathematical capacity that anyone with any knowledge on the subject matter would be able to call it out instantly. Thus, those UNABLE to call it out are the more general public. Thus, a deception.
Chiming in here. The Numberphile proof is incorrect. They base an entire proof on a false premise (they start out by assuming that the sum of all natural numbers converges to a finite number, and then derive that the number is -1/12. However, F -> T is every bit as correct as F -> F, which is why their "proof" does not prove that the sum of all natural numbers i -1/12). Their proof serves no function in mathematics. I also find it hard to believe that they are unaware of such a simple logical mistake. Hence, I must agree with Meatrace. The Numberphile video is certainly deceptive. The "damage control" of having to explain this to, hmm, every single person I know outside of the university (and several IN the university) took weeks.
EDIT: and I want to stress the point that I'm not saying they came up with some nonsense and posted it on the internet. I am fully aware that under different definitions of summation, numbers and "+" symbols you can arrive at different values for the "sum" of all "natural numbers". What the numberphile video did, though, was attempt to pass off that result as if you could derive it using the most common and basic definitions of a series sum. That's simply incorrect, and they gave a proof of so obviously lousy mathematical capacity that anyone with any knowledge on the subject matter would be able to call it out instantly. Thus, those UNABLE to call it out are the more general public. Thus, a deception.
Bolded part. A number of mathematicians disagree with you. It's a "layman's terms" explanation of something that is very important. Here's some links involving some fairly detailed math that helps describe how important it is.
Riemann zeta function and prime numbers.
Another paper talking about the Riemann zeta function and prime numbers.
Riemann zeta function and analytic number theory.
Something interesting to note, is that though the function is very useful, there's a hypothesis that is involved. There are two ways that the zeta function returns a result of 0, every negative, even number (-2, -4, -6, -8...) all return a result of zero. This is one of the reasons that the Casimir Effect can't happen on a 2-dimensional surface (it can occur in 1-dimensional space, which is important for string theory, and it can happen in 3-dimensional space, which has been observed in laboratories).
The other way is any value that includes the real number 1/2. Ex: 1/2i returns a result of 0. As does every other non-real number, combined with the real number 1/2. It's been tested for some 10,000,000,000,000 values so far, with the 0's following the prediction, but the proof that explains why has eluded mathematicians for over a century.
This is the part that involves the Millennium Prize. Someone who can either figure out a way to prove or disprove the hypothesis will get $1,000,000.
Luque and Lacasa also investigated the sequence of nontrivial Riemann zeta zeros, which are related to the distribution of primes, and whose distribution of the zeros is considered to be one of the most important unsolved mathematical problems.
Another paper talking about the importance and utility of the Reimann Zeta Function.
In his only paper in Number Theory, in 1859, Riemann showed a deep relationship between the zeros of the zeta function and π(x). This eight pages paper in fact gave rise to what is now known as Analytic Number Theory, a branch of Number Theory that uses complex analysis in tackling problems involving integers
As a side note, there's mathematical term for discarding infinity, and other nonsensical results, regularization. This allows physicists to use formulas that should produce infinite results (or something equally unhelpful) and obtain a result that is usable. Of course, for this to become an acceptable practice, it needs to have a proof or some sort of verifiable result. Which takes us back to things like the Bose-Einstein statistics, or the Casimir Effect. These are methods relying on regularization, but produce mathematical results that accurately predict results that have later been measured in reality.
Zeta functions are important in calculating the motion of particles at that quantum level, which includes the Bose-Einstein Condensate.
It's also useful in calculating the cosmological constant. Basically, without it, it wouldn't be possible to do the math.
So yeah... it has some measure of importance.
|
|
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 omitted **
As a Mason i find these posts funny
As a mason, of course you'd say that.
Which will then be used as evidence that you are.
"See, this Andrew R is saying the masons are working toward world domination... that's a smokescreen to conceal the fact that they actually ARE working toward world domination!"
|
|
Which will then be used as evidence that you are.
"See, this Andrew R is saying the masons are working toward world domination... that's a smokescreen to conceal the fact that they actually ARE working toward world domination!"
lol, i know one brother that tells people that we know what happened to Elvis and what is going on at area 51 just to screw with them
So you do know those things... Good to know.
As a Mason i find these posts funnyYou 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 omitted **
Of course I know Freemasons don't actually control the world, or participate in conspiracies any more sinister than efforts to fundraise for playgrounds or other worthy causes. That part's completely facetious. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a Mason i find these posts funnyYou 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 omitted **
That you are a mason only makes me more suspicious of the organization.
|
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 omitted **
Yes I did.
We used to use the local Mason lodge for our larps.
I propose that, next time, we have a three-way
I'm always available.
|
Edit:
Please just make it super simple and clear for me so I know where you stand, which option better represents your opinion on the matter:
A) They misspoke, using terms that were confusing and unclear, leaving you with a false impression
or
B) They're charlatans and this isn't really math
Isn't this three things being presented as two?
A) they misspoke
B) they lied
C) this isn't math
Seems to me like you were setting up a lazy debating trap there: either manipulating the other side to admit something.
Edit:
Please just make it super simple and clear for me so I know where you stand, which option better represents your opinion on the matter:
A) They misspoke, using terms that were confusing and unclear, leaving you with a false impression
or
B) They're charlatans and this isn't really math
Isn't this three things being presented as two?
A) they misspoke
B) they lied
C) this isn't math
Seems to me like you were setting up a lazy debating trap there: either manipulating the other side to admit something.
If someone wants to break it down that way, I'm fine with that. No one has come even close to proving B or C though.
B) No one has yet presented a single shred of evidence that Numberphile purposely lied.
C) The closest on this is posts from bloggers, who basically just stare at the equation incredulously without actually providing a mathematical proof.
And that's part of my point. People look at this and say "That's ridiculous" without actually investigating it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of arithmetic. Their logic basically being "I don't understand this, therefore it's wrong". No one has presented a flaw in the math, they just omit the parts they don't understand, which causes it to become incomplete and thus appear wrong.
C) The closest on this is posts from bloggers, who basically just stare at the equation incredulously without actually providing a mathematical proof.And that's part of my point. People look at this and say "That's ridiculous" without actually investigating it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of arithmetic. Their logic basically being "I don't understand this, therefore it's wrong". No one has presented a flaw in the math, they just omit the parts they don't understand, which causes it to become incomplete and thus appear wrong.
Actually...did you even look at any of my links?
The truth is that there is a lot of debate in academic circles about whether it's even legitimate math, with most mathematicians saying no and most pro-string theory physicists saying yes, with a wink and a nod. Of course, string theory it still very contentious among physicists.
The Numberphile video was deceptive, and I think intentionally so (because it gets more of dem clicks!) and has had the deleterious effect of a generation of internet wankers walking around telling their friends that if you add up all the numbers from 1-infinity you get a negative number in a "whoa" *stoner voice* sort of way, which is not what the math actually represents.
Beyond that I'm done with this, because like I've said, people far smarter than either of us disagree on this point, and there's no way we're going to come to any sort of consensus on the boards when the people doing this work are unable to.
TL;DR- Either A or B, depending on interpretation.
I think C, but am happy to admit I'm not smart enough to debate it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Irontruth,
I never doubted that the mathematical identity in question is important. However, I think the so called "laymen's terms explanation" does more damage than it does good, and therefore I'm against it.
I want to stress the point that I well and truly understand the significance of the equation in question. It's merely the way it was presented - with a false proof that tries to pass itself on as an actual proof - that's misleading, annoying and frankly rather stupid. I say that specifically the numberphile video is problematic - not the equation itself. Had they just only took 20 seconds in the start to say, "look, this is not how it really works, this is just a simplified version so that people without the usual required background could keep track of things too, and by the way we added a link to a place where you could read what's the problem with our 'proof' and what the real explanation is." That, as far as I am concerned, would have solved the issue.
What they did instead, regrettably, was go for a sensationalist title for their video - "the most amazing result you've ever seen" or some nonsense like that. And they keep repeating in the video things like "I didn't believe it at first but it's totally true and so awesome!". And so on. I know from painful personal experience just how many people, who do not have the tools to analyse the proof in that video, were mislead by that facade. Notice the word I chose - mislead. The video is misleading. It does a very serious attempt to convince people that the sum of natural numbers converges to -1/12 in the normal, common, well known and intuitive meaning. It does not. Therefore, the video is misleading and deceptive. Just as Meatrace said.
Now I've made my point as clear as I can - my beef is with the video, not the equation, and I think the video was misleading because it gave a very wrong impression to anyone with the tools to understand it properly - and that's almost everyone. If this post is not enough to convey my meaning, I don't know what is.
C) The closest on this is posts from bloggers, who basically just stare at the equation incredulously without actually providing a mathematical proof.And that's part of my point. People look at this and say "That's ridiculous" without actually investigating it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of arithmetic. Their logic basically being "I don't understand this, therefore it's wrong". No one has presented a flaw in the math, they just omit the parts they don't understand, which causes it to become incomplete and thus appear wrong.
Actually...did you even look at any of my links?
The truth is that there is a lot of debate in academic circles about whether it's even legitimate math, with most mathematicians saying no and most pro-string theory physicists saying yes, with a wink and a nod. Of course, string theory it still very contentious among physicists.
The Numberphile video was deceptive, and I think intentionally so (because it gets more of dem clicks!) and has had the deleterious effect of a generation of internet wankers walking around telling their friends that if you add up all the numbers from 1-infinity you get a negative number in a "whoa" *stoner voice* sort of way, which is not what the math actually represents.
Beyond that I'm done with this, because like I've said, people far smarter than either of us disagree on this point, and there's no way we're going to come to any sort of consensus on the boards when the people doing this work are unable to.
TL;DR- Either A or B, depending on interpretation.
I think C, but am happy to admit I'm not smart enough to debate it.
I did look at your links. They're not nearly as clear cut or as convincing as you think they are. They're ignoring large sections of mathematics that would prove them wrong.
On the flip side, have you bothered checking out my links? Reading anything on the subject at all?
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist talking about the controversy of evolution.
Ignorance might be bliss, but it's also ignorance.
Irontruth- Remember that bit of recent arguing I was doing for the IPCC?
You've taken the part of the argument in this one that I did in that one.
Good luck!
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 omitted **
Yes I did.
We used to use the local Mason lodge for our larps.
Why didn't I think of that!? We had a larp here that had to end because the venue we played at closed. There was a lodge nearby that used to rent out their hall for a church, they might have been receptive. Ah, hindsight.
|
|
Of course I know Freemasons don't actually control the world, or participate in conspiracies any more sinister than efforts to fundraise for playgrounds or other worthy causes. That part's completely facetious. :PAs a Mason i find these posts funnyYou 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 omitted **
true but some random internet fool might start to wonder if you are onto something and start to believe it. that is the true humor of conspiracies, they perpetuate themselves for ages. i keep saying we need to spread some more amusing ones ourselves. For the real larping fun the scottish rite masons really get into it.
|
|
Why didn't I think of that!? We had a larp here that had to end because the venue we played at closed. There was a lodge nearby that used to rent out their hall for a church, they might have been receptive. Ah, hindsight.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 omitted **
Yes I did.
We used to use the local Mason lodge for our larps.
most lodges keep some areas loked up but will rent out to anything that isn't immoral (porn etc)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, oh! Can I be one of the "sheeple," instead of just a sheep?Good observation. The sheep are easy to spot too. Look up.
Sheeple are sheeple so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully?Sheeple are sheeple so why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully?
Davide Luciano is a cool artist who made that image....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The freemasons are suspect because while they have a lot of charity work and such things, they also have a very closed power structure based on various levels of secrets. There is nothing that says the upper echelons are trying for anything like what the ground-level people are. And, of course, it is a very wealthy organization and has representatives in very high places. All such organizations will of course be seen as suspect.
|
|
The freemasons are suspect because while they have a lot of charity work and such things, they also have a very closed power structure based on various levels of secrets. There is nothing that says the upper echelons are trying for anything like what the ground-level people are. And, of course, it is a very wealthy organization and has representatives in very high places. All such organizations will of course be seen as suspect.
"Power" is really a inaccurate term for how we do things. Our "power structure" has more in common with having positions within any other non-profit or even our local gaming club than government structure or church hierarchy.
My father is Viet Nam Vets MC member and he always jokes with me and a late shared brother (mason and VNVMC) about getting us to share our secrets. I simply pointed out that they also have secret meetings that are barred to outsides and not to be talked about outside the club
Masonry is not really any different than any other modern esoteric social club. Aalso, didn't the English Masons publish their rites?
Also, is it true that Massonry opens doors Andrew?
I'm not Andrew, but I can answer that. It does in the same way any kind of club can: networking. If a Freemason knows nothing about someone other than that they are a Freemason, they know that the person was deemed worthy of membership in a lodge, and therefore were considered of worthy character.
|
|
Masonry is not really any different than any other modern esoteric social club. Aalso, didn't the English Masons publish their rites?
Also, is it true that Massonry opens doors ndrew?
Parts of it have indeed, the most important parts never have or ever will be officially published outside of pure betrayal of our oaths.
Opens doors how so?
Sorry, I assumed you were actually asking, I didn't expect reference humour.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Masonry is not really any different than any other modern esoteric social club. Aalso, didn't the English Masons publish their rites?
Also, is it true that Massonry opens doors ndrew?
Parts of it have indeed, the most important parts never have or ever will be officially published outside of pure betrayal of our oaths.
Not suspicious at all...
|
|
Not suspicious at all...Masonry is not really any different than any other modern esoteric social club. Aalso, didn't the English Masons publish their rites?
Also, is it true that Massonry opens doors ndrew?
Parts of it have indeed, the most important parts never have or ever will be officially published outside of pure betrayal of our oaths.
The key parts left out are how we can always recognize each other. Would be silly to spill that to people that would use it to cheat and steal from a brother
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...
*sigh*
You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.I give up. You're hopeless.
The key parts left out are how we can always recognize each other. Would be silly to spill that to people that would use it to cheat and steal from a brotherNot suspicious at all...Masonry is not really any different than any other modern esoteric social club. Aalso, didn't the English Masons publish their rites?
Also, is it true that Massonry opens doors ndrew?
Parts of it have indeed, the most important parts never have or ever will be officially published outside of pure betrayal of our oaths.
Still quite suspicious.
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...*sigh*
You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.I give up. You're hopeless.
Feel free to clarify your point. Prove that their math is wrong. Prove that it doesn't apply to effects that have been measured in the real world.
Prove you're not the creationist in this argument.
|
So far, your stance is eerily similar to a Creationist...*sigh*
You only think that because you've decided you know what I'm arguing, and won't let my actual words dissuade you.I give up. You're hopeless.
Feel free to clarify your point. Prove that their math is wrong. Prove that it doesn't apply to effects that have been measured in the real world.
Prove you're not the creationist in this argument.
You realize that you are arguing against a point he hasn't been making, right?