Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“Using the same logic, I can get infinity = -1/6 or -1/24 etc.”

I would enjoy seeing your working out. Are you able to reproduce it here?

Dear George,

Sorry about the link, I usually check to see if the link contains the rascally 's'. Slipped through this time.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvqeJkT3uyo#t=3834

The clip starts just before the relevant section.

Dear Warmair,

So you find quantum mechanics makes sense? You are a better man than I.

If you get a chance have a look at the Carl Bender video I posted.

You will note he talks about changing the representation of the series into another form to get a finite answer or in his words “a meaningful sum of the series”. Note this is a divergent series he is talking about.

He then says in some circumstance he can prove that “the procedure rigorously produces the physical answer” eg in quantum mechanics, but in “electro dynamics, while I can use this technique I cannot prove it works”.

Therefore the reality as described by physical experimentation is returning provable finite answers to the sum of divergent series. The abstract on the other hand is the purely mathematical approach which is found lacking.

This is why it is so fascinating.

SteeleRedux,

>>I’m finding it fascinating that mathematical types really go after these two physicists right from the get go as you have just done, questioning their capabilities and their worth.<<

You might also find it fascinating how biological “types really go after” Intelligent Designers and others misrepresenting what Darwin’s theory and biological evolution is all about. Or how geological “types really go after” those who claim the Earth is about 6000 years old and use geological arguments to support that claim, leading to “derision from parts of the geological community”.

Thanks for the link. I do not know who is Carl Bender, but he makes it clear that he derives his conclusion from his ASSUMPTION that the series 1-1+1-1+… converges to a sum S, which is against what is well known in mathematics (unless he REDEFINES the concept of convergence in which case he is not speaking ordinary mathematics and then also his 1+2+3+4+5+ ... must be seen as meaning something different from what it normally means).

Well, you can derive all sorts of things also in biology or geology if you ASSUME that something is true. It is even worse, because in biology and geology you would need evidence to support your assumption (called hypothesis), whereas in mathematics you can actually PROVE that something does not exist.

SR,

Not really the space, but for an interesting short one

If 1+2+3+4... = X (1)
=> 0+1+2+3... = X (2)

(1)-(2) gives

1+1+1+1+1... = 0
0+1+1+1+1... = 0
0+0+1+1+1... = 0
0+0+0+1+1... = 0
............
add infinite series together and get

1+2+3+4+5... = 0

GEORGE/QUOTE..<<..Well, you can derive all sorts of things also in biology or geology..*if you ASSUME that something is true.>>

ASSUMING A 'TREE..OF LIFE'..has DECEIVED MANY
now we compare//the dna..we are looking aT A FORREST..not a single..'tree'..of life

[IE MANY NEW Genus..Not many 'evolutions'.]

its gotten so..'presumptive'..THE MOST COMMON EDIT..IS Undo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopedia_of_Life&action=history

but how do we un-confirm..a FRAUD Thesis?.
...THE MATH DONT ADD UP..BUT tHE MEDIA SIMPLY DONT TELL YOU ITS REFUTED..and so..SO THE DELUSIONS GO ON,[then the cleanup mob comes in//deletes MY ..refutation..AS IT DELETES ITS gross claims

[surely ..you RECALL BIGGER PAGES..with pretty drawings..but the frauds..run by faulse imagined or invisible numbers [and revised/edited]..on the qt]..

and the/TRICKS DECEPTIONS lies go on.
MAKING IT UP AS WE SWALLOW THE LAtest lie

more INCONVENient study
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/inconvenient-study-arctic-was-warmer-than-the-present-during-the-medieval-warm-period/

leSS RE-lie-ABLE DATA
El Niño sea monitoring system may fail – half dead already

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/el-nino-sea-monitoring-system-may-fail-half-dead-already/
From the “send money or the instrumentation gets it” department comes news that the TAO array may already be toast due to budget constraints. One wonders if money sucked into climate programs might be a factor.

From Nature News: Nearly half of the moored buoys in the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) array have failed in the last two years, crippling an early-warning system for the warming and cooling events in the eastern equatorial Pacific, known respectively as El Niño and La Niña.

Scientists are now collecting data from just 40% of the array.
[the 40%..with the 'right-data/pro-philes?]

Noninfringing uses, in contrast, are less tangible
and less apparent at the onset of a technology.

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20131220/00174325644/innovation-asymmetry-why-copyright-industry-always-freaks-out-about-new-technologies.shtml

The costs of infringing uses can be quantified. They roll off copyright owners’ tongues: $250 billion in losses to the U.S. economy each year from IP infringement. 750,000 jobs lost annually from infringement. It doesn’t matter if the figures are correct. For even if they are completely disproved, the mere articulation of numbers promises a precision that is difficult to dislodge from the audience’s consciousness.

On the flip side, the power of potential innovation is much harder to quantify.

In contrast, noninfringing uses are less tangible, less obvious at the onset of a technology, and not advanced by an army of motivated advocates. First, they are less tangible. Noninfringing uses are difficult to quantify. How do we put a dollar figure on the benefits of enhanced communication and interaction? Estimates of future noninfringing uses will be less powerful than the actual, hard-dollar figures presented by copyright owners.

Second, they are more fully developed over time