The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
-
-
-
@obeselymorbid ... this is what I see every time I see hyaluronic acid on an ingredient list.
-
-
-
-
So, it looks like the new Harry Potter film has a title. Not sure whether it sounds very interesting though...
-
@DoctorJones said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
it sounds very interesting
Of course, it's the highlights.
-
-
@DoctorJones Why would one call a handjob service where the service provider comes?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Someone needs to drag this out every few years and remind all the new people coming up about it:
-
-
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Someone needs to drag this out every few years and remind all the new people coming up about it:
Maybe wrong thread?
-
-
@El_Heffe said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
That seems inaccurate. Must be the 32 bit version...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
That seems inaccurate. Must be the 32 bit version...
It's using DriveSpace. There's still 19.47 GB free on those disks.
-
-
-
@loopback0 I should hope not.
-
@da-Doctah It's interesting but I don't believe it.
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@da-Doctah It's interesting but I don't believe it.
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?The lacunae in an invalid proof. There's always one. The goal is to either have there be only one and have the rest actually work, or distribute them in an amusing order. I suspect there may be a proof available, for instance, that it is always possible to add another step.
It might be a renormalization-like operation being applied outside its valid context?
Have we even got an invalid proofs thread or, is it the more likely and obvious case?
-
@boomzilla , showed up in the garden before I got out there, all out of breath. I gave him a beer and he looks at me funny.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@El_Heffe said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
That seems inaccurate. Must be the 32 bit version...
Web installs are always lighter.
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@da-Doctah It's interesting but I don't believe it.
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?Very much allowed. That's how you prove that 0.33333.... plus the same thing two more times is 1 and not "a little bit less than 1". The flaw comes because the series being added are not convergent, and farther along in the video they actually make this point: yes, if you keep adding the integers to infinity it does total -1/12, but as soon as you stop short of infinity the proof crashes to the ground.
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@da-Doctah It's interesting but I don't believe it.
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?Very much allowed. That's how you prove that 0.33333.... plus the same thing two more times is 1 and not "a little bit less than 1". The flaw comes because the series being added are not convergent, and farther along in the video they actually make this point: yes, if you keep adding the integers to infinity it does total -1/12, but as soon as you stop short of infinity the proof crashes to the ground.
So, you're saying I should sell all my possessions and devote my life to Marduk?
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@da-Doctah It's interesting but I don't believe it.
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?Very much allowed.
Wrong. In fact, every single thing Numberphile does in this video is not allowed. Divergent infinite series don't have sums, period. If you pretend they do, you'll quickly find out that you can prove any nonsense you want with it including 1=2, much like with division by zero.
-
@Gąska There seem to be ways around that. The Riemann-Zeta function seems to be a thing, as do p-adic numbers and asymptotic series.
Plus, there's the problem that, while math "forbids" some of that stuff, the "solution" is still useful.
-
@Rhywden that's what the video I linked talks about. You can get the -1/12 result if you fix up your notation and use slightly different mathematical concepts. But as written, Numberphile's equations are 100% wrong.
-
@Gąska Well, the problem with that video then is that it's preview image is also somewhat misleading. As it does not quite "debunk" but "fix" the original position.
-
Unfunny math(s) topic is... oh. Well it's not here at least.
-
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Rhywden that's what the video I linked talks about. You can get the -1/12 result if you fix up your notation and use slightly different mathematical concepts. But as written, Numberphile's equations are 100% wrong.
Math is full of history of people arguing over the "allowability" of these things.
Outside of the rigorous basic stuff, math gets a little wibbly wobbly.
-
@xaade said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Rhywden that's what the video I linked talks about. You can get the -1/12 result if you fix up your notation and use slightly different mathematical concepts. But as written, Numberphile's equations are 100% wrong.
Math is full of history of people arguing over the "allowability" of these things.
Outside of the rigorous basic stuff, math gets a little wibbly wobbly.
A bit of application tends to fix that.
-
@Gribnit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@xaade said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Rhywden that's what the video I linked talks about. You can get the -1/12 result if you fix up your notation and use slightly different mathematical concepts. But as written, Numberphile's equations are 100% wrong.
Math is full of history of people arguing over the "allowability" of these things.
Outside of the rigorous basic stuff, math gets a little wibbly wobbly.
A bit of application tends to fix that.
Not really.
Case in point. The two series that have "no sum". That's ridiculous to suggest some can and some can't have sums. So what's going on? Well, there are axioms in math to keep consistency, and those axioms come into play when paradoxes would occur instead. The math theories err towards consistency. So, they just mark it "no sum" and move on. It's the MOST CONSISTENT outcome, so that's what is chosen.
I'm really busting apart the "math is real" nonsense.
Another famous case, is 1 a prime or not? Well it turns out 1 is a prime by the primitive definition, but when you allow for it, certain theories based on prime fall apart. So, they exclude 1 as a prime. You can clear up this ambiguity by saying a prime is composed of two and only two distinct products, of which one is 1. That prohibits 1, but we're getting into the wobbly territory I talked about earlier.
Then you have divide by zero. We can't make that consistent with many things so.... the answer is "nope". The problem is visible with a graph of divisors from -n to n. The lines diverge at 0.
So, yeah.
Axioms, are what happens when people just go "idkw, but ____ is true" in order to create the most consistent system.
-
@xaade that's not application, that's just more math.
-
@Gribnit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@xaade that's not application, that's just more math.
Yeah, saying something is an axiom, is just more math. It just lets us cap the more math, by saying, the turtles stop going down.
-
@xaade said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gribnit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@xaade that's not application, that's just more math.
Yeah, saying something is an axiom, is just more math.
Fair, the distinction I'm after is that application would consist of modeling a real process.
-
Oh, and btw, I don't know why, but I remember Numberphile basically starting by saying, "this is BS, but if we make this assumption, we get this weird number."
-
Oh, it's pretty easy to get a contradiction.
(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = -1/12)12 12 + 24 + 36 + 48 = -1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 = 1 = 25/2 + 97/4 + 289/8 + 769/16 = 0
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?
Totally cromulent, and a trick used quite a bit when working with infinite series. Assigning a value to a non-convergent series is the outright bogus bit. All the waffling about “got to keep going forever” is beside the point; the series doesn't converge.
I guess I now understand what the mathematicians were griping about with theoretical physics back when I was in college. They were very unhappy.
-
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
The calculation stopped making sense to me when he did a shift between two infinite series to make addition more nice. Is that even allowed?
Totally cromulent, and a trick used quite a bit when working with infinite series. Assigning a value to a non-convergent series is the outright bogus bit. All the waffling about “got to keep going forever” is beside the point; the series doesn't converge.
I guess I now understand what the mathematicians were griping about with theoretical physics back when I was in college. They were very unhappy.
The point is that the value yielded by such tricks can actually be found in real-world applications. ζ(-3) pops up in calculating the Casimir Effect, for example.
-