Infinite Insanity Cult Dogma

Some day, /prog/, I'll take you MIT. We'll go to Gerald Jay Sussman's lecture, and follow him straight to satori.

But that's not necessary just now.

For now, we are surrounded by hell. No red devils, no smell of sulfur. But hell nonetheless. A hell more grotesque than any medieval woodcut.

Instead of dramatic demons, a lifeless shuffling horde of mathematicians and physicists who believe in the cult dogma of the infinitesimal. Without souls. Without imagination. Without worth. Beyond all redemption.

Let's examine a particular case that highlights the extreme delusion that infects the minds of these zealots. I want you to watch this short propaganda video they are pushing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww

Alternatively, you can read this:

http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-euler-maclaurin-formula-bernoulli-numbers-the-zeta-function-and-real-variable-analytic-continuation/

How can the infinite series S1: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... = 1 / 2 ?!
How can the infinite series S2: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1 / 12 ?!

This is what they honestly, truly believe. Their rationale for S1 is that you take the average of the two values it oscillates between. S2 can be derived by substituting in S1 through algebraic hocus pocus. How can a non-terminating recursive process that toggles a bit ever converge to something for which there is no coherent representation that follows from the natural numbers?

It should be noted that these results form the foundation of String Theory/M-Theory, which brings this whole field into question, for it is resting on a foundation of lies.

From whence does one compute a result of 1/2 from the infinite sequence of bits 01*? They are just arbitrarily assigning non-converging series rational values as a syntactic label based upon blind faith of the infinitesimal, then plugging these labels in as values for other formulae and proselytizing it as absolute truth.

It is a complete charade, a racket no different than Christianity or Judaism. It is numerology pretending to be rigorous mathematics.

I've been trying to make some Abelsense out of this, but it escapes me. How anyone can believe this and still have braincells to breathe and regulate one's cardiovascular system is beyond me!

Clearly, these formulae do not make sense if one stays within the traditional way to evaluate infinite series, and so it seems that one is forced to use the somewhat unintuitive analytic continuation interpretation of such sums to make these formulae rigorous

>>2
Don't even bother replying. If you do, he'll never leave.

>>1
That video came with Portuguese captions on. Piss off, Brazil-kun.

What the hell is this? I thought pop sci was disgusting enough, and then this shit comes up. ``Pop math''? Seriously?

How can the infinite series S1: 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... = 1 / 2 ?!

It doesn't. That shit makes no sense, and even infinity-abiding Jews know everything breaks when dealing with infinite series. With stupid ``proofs'' like this you can also prove 0 = 1.

How can a diverging series have a definite value? Do those retards even know how a limit is defined? Are they abusing definitions just to impress normalfags?

I'm sorry, >>1-san, but the dumb kikes in your epic IFUCKINGLOVENUMBERSXD video aren't part of the "lifeless shuffling horde of mathematicians and physicists who believe in the cult dogma of the infinitesimal" you're talking about. Those infinitesimal loving kikes actually put some rigor in their work.

>>5

Do those retards even know how a limit is defined? Are they abusing definitions

You see, that's the point of math definitions: they're not set in stone, and quite arbitrary. For instance, if you use the Cesaro definition of an infinite series sum, then 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... does indeed equal 1 / 2.

Mathematics does not follow from experiments, is not tied to physical phenomena and is instead based on arbitrarily chosen axioms. Usually these axioms are chosen so as to be useful in describing physical phenomena, but that's not a dogma. Then again, what is useful for describing phenomena is an open question: for millenia, people thought that Euclidian geometry is The Right Thing, but then it turned out that Euclid "lied" and another set of axioms is actually closer to reality.

>>5
1-1+1-1.... Does not diverge, it just fails to converge. It is said to be bounded.

>>6,7
Sorry, I meant to quote S2, the same explained in the first video. How are strictly increasing partial sums supposed to be bounded above?

I wouldn't be surprised if le numberphiles make that video with the ``proof'' that pi is 4 by inscribing a circle in a square and taking off the corners ``infinitely'', which is exactly the reason the proof is flawed.

Sure, math is abstract bullshite written by stoned old men, but is it Abelson stoned? you can't just throw your axioms and definitions out the window and claim you're too cool for limits, at least not if you call yourself a respectable mathematician.

Those kikes are making epic nerdy videos to get money from dumb neurotypical goyim.

>>6
Fucking idiot. You're completely wrong and ignorant. Screw off hawkings (an idiot relativist who is too dumb for anything but his banal astrophysics), the trivial physical reality you see and touch is not the only reality or the main reality. Experiments are for what do you fucking think? Dealing with trivial physical phenomena.

ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbiˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary

1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

Mmhm yes what is mathematics? Random choice and personal whim or an infinite ever unfolding reasoned system? Pretty clear what it is, you fucktard. If it was ``arbitrary'' it wouldn't be able to have the power it has over trivial physical phenomenon (the only thing your tiny little mind (I bet it pisses you off that I said mind instead of ``brain'') can comprehend) and science would not exist. So bite it, you fucking idiot. You fucks are just going over high school math and stupid ``pop'' youtube videos. What the fuck do you know? And I'm surprised you idiots would like lisp but not like pure mathematics? Yes, your treasured lambda calculus (I doubt you idiots can even understand it hurr 1 + 1 = 2 is arbitrary abstract BULLSHIT hurr) is entirely arbitrary and ``bullshite'' (learn to spell, you stupid eurotrash BULLSHIT not ``bullshite'' you fuckin irish/russian bastard) You might as well be fucking java ``coders''. Fuckin liberal idiots. You know what children and chimps aren't good at? Abstraction. You know what you aren't good at? Heh heh, fuckin braindead mongoloids.

>>9
Only an autist would so vehemently insist on the absolute strictest interpretation of a dictionary definition rather than learn from the context. This is not a proof awaiting peer review you socially retarded cunt.

>>10
GET OUT OF HERE GO BACK TO YOUR FUCKING CLUBS AND DANCE HALLS OR WHATEVER SHIT AND FUCK YOUR GIRLFRIEND YOU FUCKIN JOCK RETARD BRAINDEAD LOW INTELLECT (YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE) STUPID NIGGER FOOTBALL PLAYING FAGGOT WHO CANT ACCEPT THAT 1 + 1 = 2 YOU FUCKIN STUPID NIGGER NORMALFAG FUCKIN CLUB GOING SHITHEAD DANCING WITH WHORES YOU FUCKING NIGGER YOUR CONTEXT IS WHAT'S ARBITRARY YOU STUPID FUCKIN NIGGER EUROTRASH FORESKINS ARE FOR FUCKING SAVAGES THEY ARE A FUCKING SIGN OF UNCIVILITY THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE BUT TO TURN YOU INTO A WHORE FUCKING OOGA BOOGA NIGGER THAT CANNOT ACCEPT THE OBJECTIVITY THE HIGHER REALITY OF PURE MATHEMATICS YOU CANNOT ACCEPT THAT THINGS OTHER THAN YOUR DIK EXISTS YOU FUCKING NIGGER

>>6
Yes, but the Cesaro sum isn't the same as a standard sum. They're two different functions. You can't just arbitrarily pick and choose which function you want to use and swap it in and pretend its the same. The Cesaro sum ranges over the real numbers. You're changing the type of the number. There's no such things as reals in computing, whether classical or quantum.

>>11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ETvUq4K44

The series S can be mapped to the natural number set therefore it is of that order type, and is the transfinite number ω (omega), which is even. Therefore the result of series S is 0.

Checkmate.

>>13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMA9gVDgJZ0&list=UUctLlCvYV-1Md-dJDJF7VOw

>>9
Please plug your nonsense stream pipe up your ass, there's no need to spew it all over this board.

If it was ``arbitrary'' it wouldn't be able to have the power it has over trivial physical phenomenon

Can't see the logic in that. Mathematics is so widely applicable precisely because its axioms can be chosen to fit the problem, not the other way around. For instance, mathematicians have created several contradicting geometries; several types of logic (classical and intuitionistic); non-infinitary mathematics (in which there is no concept of infinity); even such a concept as an integral has lots of different inequivalent definitions: what is integrable by Denjoy may not be integrable by Lebesgue, and what is integrable by Lebesgue may not be integrable by Riemann.

>>12

You're changing the type of the number

Go back to your Haskell, we're going dynamically-typed. Types no longer matter!

>>16
Your wikipedia level understanding is evident. The problem wouldn’t exist if there were no mathematics.

>>17
There are no mathematics. It's just a simulated world in human brains.

>>14
Order equivalence doesn't say anything about the limit of a series, otherwise 1 + 2 + 3 would have the same result as 10 + 11 + 12.

>>18
There are no simulated worlds. There are only worlds that human minds connect to through intuition.

>>20
simulate my anus!

>>17
The world wouldn't exist if it wasn't Touhouring Complete.

Check em

>>23
You missed the dubs by 0.5 though.

Touhouring complete

>>16
I'd read this post and came. Yet there was something vaguely familiar about it. And then I realized that I was the one who'd written it. Far out!

>>26
That's gay.

>>27
No it's hermaphroditic.

>>26
You think that's weird? Today, when I saw this thread, I was immediately captivated by its argument. As I continued to read >>1, roughly half way through, I realized I was the solemn OP of this once dead thread.

And yet, I'm still taken aback. Did I really write those majestic words? Or was it one of my cheeky tulpas?

a racket no different than Christianity or Judaism. It is numerology pretending to be rigorous mathematics.

Nothing wrong with Christianity, you fat fuck.

>>30
Except that it's a slave religion for submissive cuckolds, that is.

>>30
Get the fuck out, kike.

>>31
Get the fuck out, /pol/.

>>32
I'm black. You ain't got shit on me.

>>33
So did you rub the shit on yourself then?

>>34
Dats it I'm reporting yo racist ass.

>>9,11
wew lad, nice dubs though