Re: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg132254] Re: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using*From*: Andrzej Kozlowski <akozlowski at gmail.com>*Date*: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:19:58 -0500 (EST)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-outx@smc.vnet.net*Delivered-to*: mathgroup-newsendx@smc.vnet.net*References*: <20140123083545.AF99569E8@smc.vnet.net>

No, you are as wrong as wrong can be. This is 100% rigorous mathematics and not even new, in fact the standard text on this was written more than 60 years ago. You can even read a few pages here: http://www.amazon.com/Divergent-Series-AMS-Chelsea-Publishing/dp/0821826492 Have you never heard of Ceasro, Abel, Ramanujan etc. and and last but not least G.H. Hardy? Do you think they were physicists particularly in hardy's case than would be quite funny. Have you heard of A mathematicians apology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._H._Hardy Andrzej Kozlowski On 23 Jan 2014, at 09:35, DON <djorser at comcast.net> wrote: > Hi All! > > Table[{k, Sum[n,{n,k,Infinity},Regularization->"Dirichlet"]}, {k, 0, 10}]//TableForm > > yields > > 0 5/12 > 1 -(1/12) > 2 -(7/12) > 3 -(13/12) > 4 -(19/12) > 5 -(25/12) > 6 -(31/12) > 7 -(37/12) > 8 -(43/12) > 9 -(49/12) > 10 -(55/12) > > I gather this is neither Mathematica or mathematics, but physics, > and the unexplainable success of mathematics to > express how the universe might work. It seems to me that > the mixing of this kind of result with mathematical > computations is OK if one is doing physics, but , as > I understand it, one should not be using these results > to do, for example, computations in number theory. > > Any more thoughts from those who understand > what's going on here??? > > Don J. Orser > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andrzej Kozlowski" <akozlowski at gmail.com> > To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net > Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:32:06 AM > Subject: Re: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using Mathematica's symbols? > > > > > On 21 Jan 2014, at 19:58, Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu> wrote: > >> Andrzej, >> >> Drat, I tried each documented value for the Regularization option except that one! > > Yes, the name Dirichlet for this summation (or regularization) method seems to me non-standard but it was the only one that suggested a relation with the zeta function. > Hardy in Divergent Series called this summation method Ramanujan summation, since Ramanujan used it all the time and obtained lots of formulas with it, although the classic equality in this subject of this thread goes back to Euler. > > Andrzej > > >> >> On Jan 21, 2014, at 3:02 AM, Andrzej Kozlowski <akozlowski at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Note that: >>> >>> In[25]:= Sum[n, {n, 1, Infinity}, Regularization -> "Dirichlet"] >>> >>> Out[25]= -(1/12) >>> >>> This is of course, perfectly correct ;-) >>> >>> Andrzej >>> >>> On 20 Jan 2014, at 10:01, Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu> > wrote: >>> >>>> You may try the Regularization option for Sum, but it doesn't seem to give any finite result for that divergent series. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, the video to which you refer relies ultimately > upon using Ces=E0ro-summability of 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 _ . . . , which you may implement in Mathematica as: >>>> >>>> Sum[(-1)^n, {n, 0, \[Infinity]}, Regularization -> =93Cesaro"] >>>> (* 1/2 *) >>>> >>>> [The video to which you refer is disingenuous in not saying up-front that it's not using ordinary summability but some other form(s) of > summability. (The merest hint is a brief glimpse of a page of a text on String Theory where the formula >>>> 1 + 2 + 3 + . . . = -1/12 is displayed just below a line referring to renormalization.) >>>> >>>> As it stands, that video, in my mind, is deleterious to = > understanding of the mathematics of infinite series destructive of = trust = > in mathematics: it manipulates divergent series as if they were = > convergent.] >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jan 19, 2014, at 2:56 AM, Matthias Bode <lvsaba at hotmail.com> == > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hola, >>>>> >>>>> I came across this video (supported by the Mathematical Sciences == > Research Institute* in Berkeley, California): >>>>> >>>>> http://www.numberphile.com/videos/analytical_continuation1.html >>>>> >>>>> Could the method shown in this video be replicated using = > Mathematica symbols such as Sum[] &c.? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> MATTHIAS BODES 17.36398=B0, W 66.21816=B0,2'590 m. AMSL. >>>>> >>>>> *) http://www.msri.org/web/msri >>>>> >>>> >>>> Murray Eisenberg = > murray at math.umass.edu >>>> Mathematics & Statistics Dept. >>>> Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 240 246-7240 (H) >>>> University of Massachusetts >>>> 710 North Pleasant Street >>>> Amherst, MA 01003-9305 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> =97=97 >> Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu >> Mathematics & Statistics Dept. >> Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 240 246-7240 (H) >> University of Massachusetts >> 710 North Pleasant Street >> Amherst, MA 01003-9305 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >

**References**:**Re: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using***From:*DON <djorser@comcast.net>

**Re: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using**

**Re: Default value in pattern matching**

**Re: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using**

**Part Function**