- 28 Oct '14 20:25 / 6 editsI have a problem with the infinite series:

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 …

equalling -1/12

In one of the links I recently looked at, it said that the sum of the infinite series:

1 + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ …

Is infinity. So surely the sum of the infinite series:

S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 …

is also infinity?

OK, assuming this is the case, the infinite series:

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 …

can be rewritten as:

1 + (1+1) + (1+2) + (1+3) + (1+4) …

which means it is equal to the sum of the two infinite series:

S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 …

AND

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 …

i.e. S = S1 + S

But note that S1 = infinity (I assume ) and the previous proof apparently proved S = -1/12. So surely, -1/12 + infinity equals infinity thus S is infinity?

(and this is not to mention the apparent logical contradiction of the values of the two sides of the equation being not equal )

I can only assume I am wrong but, what exactly is the flaw with my above logic? - 28 Oct '14 22:00

You have 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... too big, S1 is definitely not positive:*Originally posted by humy***I have a problem with the infinite series:**

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 …

equalling -1/12

In one of the links I recently looked at, it said that the sum of the infinite series:

1 + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ …

Is infinity. So surely the sum of the infinite series:

S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 …

is also infinity?

OK, assuming this is the case, the infi ...[text shortened]... g not equal )

I can only assume I am wrong but, what exactly is the flaw with my above logic?

Consider the difference -1/12 - (-1/12)

0 = -1/12 - (-1/12) = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... - (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...)

= (1 - 0) + (2 - 1) + (3 - 2) + (4 - 3) + ....

= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...

So S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... = 0, which is just what one would expect of a field of characteristic zero.

Alternatively do the sum like this:

Let S = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...

and R = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...

S = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...

2S = 0+ 2 + 0 + 2 + ...

Therefore -S = S - 2S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 +... = R

R is given by the series 1 + x + x² + ... = 1/(1 - x) when x = -1, so R = 1/2.

Therefore 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = -1/2, which is negative so 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... is definitely not positive infinity. I've found two ways it's non-positive, how many more do you want? - 28 Oct '14 23:12

"I have a problem with the infinite series: S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... equalling -1/12"*Originally posted by humy***I have a problem with the infinite series:**

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 …

equalling -1/12

In one of the links I recently looked at, it said that the sum of the infinite series:

1 + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ …

Is infinity. So surely the sum of the infinite series:

S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 …

is also infinity?

OK, assuming this is the case, the infi ...[text shortened]... g not equal )

I can only assume I am wrong but, what exactly is the flaw with my above logic?

--Humy

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... does not equal -1/12.

I don't know what else you may have read, and I would not even attempt

to guess about what you or someone else may misunderstand, but if your

conclusion is that 1+2+3+4... = -1/12, you should assume that someone

has done something incorrect at some point in arriving at that conclusion. - 28 Oct '14 23:23 / 3 edits

Thanks for that.*Originally posted by DeepThought***You have 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... too big, S1 is definitely not positive:**

Consider the difference -1/12 - (-1/12)

0 = -1/12 - (-1/12) = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... - (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...)

= (1 - 0) + (2 - 1) + (3 - 2) + (4 - 3) + ....

= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ...

So S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +... = 0, which is just what one would expect of a field of characteristic zero.

...[text shortened]... nitely not positive infinity. I've found two ways it's non-positive, how many more do you want?

So does the infinite series

S1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +...

Actually equal zero?! (you said it can equal -1/2 in your second argument )

But I still have a confusion:

A link that I looked at said the infinite series:

1 + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ …

equals infinity (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28mathematics%29 under subtitle "Comparison test" )

But couldn't I rewrite that as:

1 + (½ + ½ ) + (½ + ½ ) + (½ + ½ ) …

= 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +...

(is what I just did there in the above 'cheating'? )

= S1 ? - 28 Oct '14 23:34 / 5 edits

Actually, it is correct! Ridiculous as it may seem, it has been mathematically proven!*Originally posted by Duchess64***"I have a problem with the infinite series: S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... equalling -1/12"**

--Humy

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... does not equal -1/12.

I don't know what else you may have read, and I would not even attempt

to guess about what you or someone else may misunderstand, but if your

conclusion is that 1+2+3+4... = -1/12, you should assume that someone

has done something incorrect at some point in arriving at that conclusion.

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

The said proof goes something like:

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 … = ?

S1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 + 1 … = ½ (IF this sequence is infinite and not finite)

S2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + 7 … = ?

2S2 =

S2 + S2 =

1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + 7 – 8 …

+ 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + 7 …

= 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 + 1 …

(because each "+1" comes from 3+-2=1, 5+-4=1 etc and each "-1",comes from -2+1=-1, -4+3=-1 etc)

= S1 = ½

therefore, if 2S2 = ½, S2 = ¼.

So:

S2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + 7 … = ¼ (IF this sequence is infinite and not finite)

So, now:

S – S2 =

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 …

– [ 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + 7 … ]

= 0 + 4 + 0 + 8 + 0 + 12 + 0 …

(note that, for example, the “+ 4 “ above comes from +2 – -2 = +2 + 2 = 4)

thus:

S – S2 = 4 + 8 + 12 + 16 + 20 …

factorizing 4 out gives:

S – S2 = 4( 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 … )

but note that the “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 …” part above is the wanted S thus

S – S2 = 4S

And, because S2 = ¼, means that:

S – ¼ = 4S

subtract both sides of the equation by S i.e. S – ¼ – S = 4S – S gives:

- ¼ = 3S

Divide both sides of the equation by 3 to get -1/12 = S i.e.

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 … -1/12 (IF this sequence is infinite and not finite)

But I am still confused by this result even though the above proof appears perfectly sound. - 29 Oct '14 00:04 / 2 edits

A recent thread was created by Shavixmir, who apparently struggled to*Originally posted by humy***Actually, it is correct! Ridiculous as it may seem, it has been mathematically proven!**

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

The said proof goes something like:

S = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 … = ?

S1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 + 1 … = ½ (IF this sequence is infinite and not finite)

S2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + 7 … = ?

2S2 ...[text shortened]... not finite)

But I am still confused by this result even though the above proof appears sound.

comprehend that the convergent infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... = 1.

I don't think changing the subject to divergent infinite series is helpful.

As a general rule, I don't watch YouTube videos. Believe it or not, I

learned mathematics from studying books, articles, and solving problems.

Can you refer me to a book by a reputable mathematician with your claim

in it? If I have the time to read it, then I shall consider that argument.

It's a divergent series. I know that a divergent infinite series such as

1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ... may be *assigned* the value of 1/2 by a summation method

(averaging) such as a Cesaro summation. I would submit that it would be

misleading at best to write as though a divergent series *must equal*

something as a sum in any classical sense, when the result should depend

upon the summation method chosen. Insofar as I am aware, there are

many summation methods, which could assign different values to the same

divergent series.

Summation methods were not an area of my former mathematical expertise.

As a child, however, I intuitively quickly understood that the harmonic

series is divergent, and I came up with a simple proof for it. - 29 Oct '14 00:27 / 2 edits

I found this:*Originally posted by Duchess64***A recent thread was created by Shavixmir, who apparently struggled to**

comprehend that the convergent infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... = 1.

I don't think changing the subject to divergent infinite series is helpful.

As a general rule, I don't watch YouTube videos. Believe it or not, I

learned mathematics from studying books, articles, and solving ...[text shortened]... kly understood that the harmonic

series is divergent, and I came up with a simple proof for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi%27s_series

not yet sure what I should make of it. - 29 Oct '14 18:59

You should read the page "Divergent series" which explains the issues quite well and gives a set of techniques for assigning values to series which aren't absolutely convergent. It's also worth having a look at the page "Riemann series theorem" which shows that the sum of a series which isn't absolutely convergent can be summed to anything you want it to be summed to.*Originally posted by humy***I found this:**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi%27s_series

not yet sure what I should make of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_series - 29 Oct '14 20:31

Thanks. Yet another thing I will now study.*Originally posted by DeepThought***You should read the page "Divergent series" which explains the issues quite well and gives a set of techniques for assigning values to series which aren't absolutely convergent. It's also worth having a look at the page "Riemann series theorem" which shows that the sum of a series which isn't absolutely convergent can be summed to anything you want it t ...[text shortened]... tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem**

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_series - 29 Oct '14 21:23

At a local university, every student who seeks an undergraduate degree in*Originally posted by humy to DeepThought***Thanks. Yet another thing I will now study.**

mathematics is required to pass a basic course about mathematical proofs.

Given that most of these students will become teachers, it's important that

they have enough training to distinguish, at least at a basic level, their

future students' valid proofs from their invalid proofs.

As far as I can infer, you (Humy) never have been exposed to such a course

about mathematical proofs. Given your apparently 'shaky' foundation in formal

mathematics, I would submit that you might well be misled if you keep

attempting to learn rather advanced mathematics from isolated Wikipedia

articles or YouTube videos. University students don't use Wikipedia and

YouTube as their primary resources for textbooks and lectures. Wikipedia

articles don't test students' understanding by making them solve problems.

Mathematics cannot be learned just by reading; one must solve problems too.

There's not a quick and easy way to learn much advanced mathematics.

Even for me (I had extraordinary natural gifts), I would have to work at it.

So if you are really seriously interested in developing a sound understanding

of mathematics, then I would advise you to find a textbook that suits your

interests and work your way through it from the beginning. - 29 Oct '14 21:49 / 5 edits

I used to know all this stuff a very long time ago when I was much younger because I did university maths courses. Unfortunately, it is just terrible how much of it I forgot since then and now have to relearn. Although, having said that, I am finding that, due to the recent return of interest in maths, my memory is sometimes jogged by what I read on the web and then much of that old knowledge comes flooding back to me and I think "arr yes! that's right! now I remember how to do all that! "*Originally posted by Duchess64***At a local university, every student who seeks an undergraduate degree in**

mathematics is required to pass a basic course about mathematical proofs.

Given that most of these students will become teachers, it's important that

they have enough training to distinguish, at least at a basic level, their

future students' valid proofs from their invalid proofs ...[text shortened]... u to find a textbook that suits your

interests and work your way through it from the beginning.

The reason for my sudden recent interest in maths is because I am researching a highly original theory (about probability and how to completely*solve*the problem of induction! ) I independently came up with and am now working on that I thought unfortunately requires some very difficult mathematics. But, fortunately, I have just worked out the other day that I don't need such complex maths for this after all and I can get away perfectly fine with much simpler basic maths with the only type of proof needed being proof by contradiction which I don't have to look up because I remember how to do that perfectly and I generally find proof by contradiction a very easy (and satisfying ) type of proof to construct. - 29 Oct '14 22:14

Thanks for your explanation. When you (Humy) created a recent thread*Originally posted by humy***I used to know all this stuff a very long time ago when I was much younger because I did university maths courses. Unfortunately, it is just terrible how much of it I forgot since then and now have to relearn. Although, having said that, I am finding that, due to the recent return of interest in maths, my memory is sometimes jogged by what I read on the web and ...[text shortened]... generally find proof by contradiction a very easy (and satisfying ) type of proof to construct.**

and revealed your complete ignorance about the harmonic series, I assumed

that your mathematical background was very modest at best. - 30 Oct '14 05:54

Given that you have already admitted that you don't watch YouTube videos, I find this advice somewhat suspect. Also, given that you clearly went to school prior to the advent of online video, your personal experience is hardly relevant.*Originally posted by Duchess64***I would submit that you might well be misled if you keep**

attempting to learn rather advanced mathematics from isolated Wikipedia

articles or YouTube videos.

YouTube videos and Wikipedia are excellent teaching aids. If schools are not yet using them, then they should be. And despite your claims, it is actually possible to do university courses, including ones in mathematics, that have YouTube as the primary medium of instruction.

https://www.edx.org/course-search?search_query=mathematics - 30 Oct '14 08:41 / 2 edits
*Originally posted by twhitehead***Given that you have already admitted that you don't watch YouTube videos, I find this advice somewhat suspect. Also, given that you clearly went to school prior to the advent of online video, your personal experience is hardly relevant.**

YouTube videos and Wikipedia are excellent teaching aids. If schools are not yet using them, then they should be. And d ...[text shortened]... the primary medium of instruction.

https://www.edx.org/course-search?search_query=mathematicshttps://www.edx.org/course-search?search_query=mathematics

Thanks for that! I know you can do open university courses via the net but I think I look into these courses as well.

I just don't understand why [some] people here are implying you cannot learn maths over the net! WHY not? That doesn't make sense.

And what is so terrible about YouTube videos and Wikipedia anyway? Sure there are*some*YouTube videos that are full of a load of crap (mainly Creationists propaganda videos ), but, it is easy enough to just ignore the ones that are obviously full of crap and is there a mysterious logical contradiction ( that I am unaware of ) in a YouTube video or a Wikipedia page containing 100% perfectly valid information and therefore allow one to learn well from it i.e. be perfectly educational?