Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Mountaineer » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:49 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:46 pm
Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:10 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:07 am

No it isn't true. It's an excellent example of why you can't treat "infinite series" like actual things.
Again, they are abstractions, not reality.

Here's a simpler example which is equally valid:

Assume that we have two variables a and b, and that: a = b

Multiply both sides by a to get: a2 = ab

Subtract b2 from both sides to get: a2 - b2 = ab - b2

This is the tricky part: Factor the left side (using FOIL from algebra) to get (a + b)(a - b) and factor out b from the right side to get b(a - b). If you're not sure how FOIL or factoring works, don't worry—you can check that this all works by multiplying everything out to see that it matches. The end result is that our equation has become: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)

Since (a - b) appears on both sides, we can cancel it to get: a + b = b

Since a = b (that's the assumption we started with), we can substitute b in for a to get: b + b = b

Combining the two terms on the left gives us: 2b = b

Since b appears on both sides, we can divide through by b to get: 2 = 1
The idea that the sum of all positive integers from 1 to infinity equaling -1/12 isn't just hocus pocus though. It has structure in the form of the Ramanujan Summation.

The Ramanujan Summation has practical applications and is used in real world physics calculations, particularly in string theory.

Given that it has legitimate real world use in physics calculations such as the Casimir Effect, it's fair to say it's an actual "thing."
Ok, then you pay me an amount of money equal to each positive integer from 1 to infinity, and I'll pay you -1/12th of a dollar, and we'll call it square.

Also note that "real world physics calculations" and "string theory" don't really belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier...
8)
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:51 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:46 pm


Ok, then you pay me an amount of money equal to each positive integer from 1 to infinity, and I'll pay you -1/12th of a dollar, and we'll call it square.

Also note that "real world physics calculations" and "string theory" don't really belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier...
Haha but I can't though! Since infinity is a process and not a number. Which of course is what the whole thing relies on.

Joking aside, yes, as I posted just above, you can't assign -1/12 to the sum like 1 + 1 = 2. You're totally right in that regard. I am just pointing out it's a legitimate way to work with divergent series in a similar vein of how we work with imaginary numbers like the square root of -1.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:52 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:48 pm

A. It's "sleight of hand".
B. If you have to use sleight of hand, that means you are deceiving the audience.

Q. E. D.
Well, it's a stretch to say they're deceiving the audience, it's just highly theoretical and too much to have in a video for the laymen.

EDIT: and yes, my bad for the typo.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:55 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:51 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:46 pm


Ok, then you pay me an amount of money equal to each positive integer from 1 to infinity, and I'll pay you -1/12th of a dollar, and we'll call it square.

Also note that "real world physics calculations" and "string theory" don't really belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier...
Haha but I can't though! Since infinity is a process and not a number. Which of course is what the whole thing relies on.

Joking aside, yes, as I posted just above, you can't assign -1/12 to the sum like 1 + 1 = 2. You're totally right in that regard. I am just pointing out it's a legitimate way to work with divergent series in a similar vein of how we work with imaginary numbers like the square root of -1.
"[L]egitimate" and "divergent series" also don't belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier.

But i is another matter. That is easily understood as being on a number line perpendicular to the normal one, and you don't need any divergent infinite series tricks to use it.

And of course it is also key to the "most beautiful equation", so I'll give it a pass on being "imaginary".
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:57 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:52 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:48 pm

A. It's "sleight of hand".
B. If you have to use sleight of hand, that means you are deceiving the audience.

Q. E. D.
Well, it's a stretch to say they're deceiving the audience, it's just highly theoretical and too much to have in a video for the laymen.

EDIT: and yes, my bad for the typo.
Ok, but if you're claiming to explain something to laypersons, it's important to say if it is oversimplified and not really a complete and valid explanation.

I always do that in those circumstances.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:59 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:55 pm

"[L]egitimate" and "divergent series" also don't belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier.

But i is another matter. That is easily understood as being on a number line perpendicular to the normal one, and you don't need any divergent infinite series tricks to use it.

And of course it is also key to the "most beautiful equation", so I'll give it a pass on being "imaginary".
Well if you perfectly understand i then you should easily understand the use of the Ramanujan Summation.

If these physics textbooks I'm looking at are wrong in using that result, then we ought to tell them.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:59 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:57 pm

Ok, but if you're claiming to explain something to laypersons, it's important to say if it is oversimplified and not really a complete and valid explanation.

I always do that in those circumstances.
Yes, that's why I pointed out that they did a follow-up video.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:01 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:59 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:55 pm

"[L]egitimate" and "divergent series" also don't belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier.

But i is another matter. That is easily understood as being on a number line perpendicular to the normal one, and you don't need any divergent infinite series tricks to use it.

And of course it is also key to the "most beautiful equation", so I'll give it a pass on being "imaginary".
Well if you perfectly understand i then you should easily understand the use of the Ramanujan Summation.

If these physics textbooks I'm looking at are wrong in using that result, then we ought to tell them.
That's the dude Stellan Skarsgard talks about in Good Will Hunting, I presume?
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:02 pm

Google confirms.
You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:04 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:59 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 4:55 pm

"[L]egitimate" and "divergent series" also don't belong in the same sentence without a negating qualifier.

But i is another matter. That is easily understood as being on a number line perpendicular to the normal one, and you don't need any divergent infinite series tricks to use it.

And of course it is also key to the "most beautiful equation", so I'll give it a pass on being "imaginary".
Well if you perfectly understand i then you should easily understand the use of the Ramanujan Summation.

If these physics textbooks I'm looking at are wrong in using that result, then we ought to tell them.
I know that Einstein's said that if observations didn't agree with his theory, that meant the observations are wrong.

But as someone who isn't Einstein, it's obvious to me that if a theory comes up with an obviously incorrect result such as the Ramanujan Summation does, then the theory is incorrect.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have any value. To take the most famous example, we know that Newtonian physics is incorrect, but it is still very useful in many applications. You just have to know where it produces incorrect results and not try to use it there.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:08 pm

You can get any result you want if you rearrange terms in a non-convergent infinite series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:12 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:08 pm
You can get any result you want if you rearrange terms in a non-convergent infinite series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem
Ok, I get it now.
Ramanujan made up a new definition for summation, or for =.
If you're allowed to make up new definitions for existing words or symbols, you can prove anything you want.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180949559/
Last edited by Libertarian666 on Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:12 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:04 pm

I know that Einstein's said that if observations didn't agree with his theory, that meant the observations are wrong.

But as someone who isn't Einstein, it's obvious to me that if a theory comes up with an obviously incorrect result such as the Ramanujan Summation does, then the theory is incorrect.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have any value. To take the most famous example, we know that Newtonian physics is incorrect, but it is still very useful in many applications. You just have to know where it produces incorrect results and not try to use it there.
Newtonian physics is not incorrect. If you use the formulas for general relativity in non-relativistic scenarios they simplify to Newton's formulas. They're 100% correct. Relativity theory is just an extension, not a correction.

I already extended an olive branch by saying you're correct in saying that the sum of all positive integers isn't -1/12 in traditional maths. Why can't we do the same by just admitting it has legitimate uses in theoretical maths? I mean, there is literally coursework on this stuff being handed out as university assignments.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:22 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:12 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:04 pm

I know that Einstein's said that if observations didn't agree with his theory, that meant the observations are wrong.

But as someone who isn't Einstein, it's obvious to me that if a theory comes up with an obviously incorrect result such as the Ramanujan Summation does, then the theory is incorrect.

That doesn't mean it doesn't have any value. To take the most famous example, we know that Newtonian physics is incorrect, but it is still very useful in many applications. You just have to know where it produces incorrect results and not try to use it there.
Newtonian physics is not incorrect. If you use the formulas for general relativity in non-relativistic scenarios they simplify to Newton's formulas. They're 100% correct. Relativity theory is just an extension, not a correction.
Newtonian physics is in fact incorrect in all cases. It just appears to be correct in everyday macroscopic life because we can't detect the differences between it and real physics. With sufficiently precise instruments (barring quantum limitations) that is not true.
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:04 pm
I already extended an olive branch by saying you're correct in saying that the sum of all positive integers isn't -1/12 in traditional maths. Why can't we do the same by just admitting it has legitimate uses in theoretical maths? I mean, there is literally coursework on this stuff being handed out as university assignments.
That is true for some values of "=" and "sum".

And I'm a billionaire for some values of "billion".
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:30 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:22 pm

Newtonian physics is in fact incorrect in all cases. It just appears to be correct in everyday macroscopic life because we can't detect the differences between it and real physics. With sufficiently precise instruments (barring quantum limitations) that is not true.
Now we're in Newtonian physics is incorrect territory.

Holy moly we're off on the deep end. I see what I'm dealing with here. No more productive conversation is going to be had on this topic, so I won't be responding anymore to this particular subject.

I'll just be getting back to homework with infinite sequences, series, and yes, the Ramanujan Summation.
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 6:01 pm

Smith1776 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:30 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 5:22 pm

Newtonian physics is in fact incorrect in all cases. It just appears to be correct in everyday macroscopic life because we can't detect the differences between it and real physics. With sufficiently precise instruments (barring quantum limitations) that is not true.
Now we're in Newtonian physics is incorrect territory.

Holy moly we're off on the deep end. I see what I'm dealing with here. No more productive conversation is going to be had on this topic, so I won't be responding anymore to this particular subject.

I'll just be getting back to homework with infinite sequences, series, and yes, the Ramanujan Summation.
No problem. Good luck with your homework.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by stuper1 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:23 pm

For all of you COVID-19 isolationists, Ramanujan's story was told in an excellent book called "The Man Who Knew Infinity". The 2014 movie of the same name is okay, but sensationalizes a few things, and the book of course is much better.
User avatar
CT-Scott
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:39 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by CT-Scott » Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:50 pm

Is this the right room for an argument?
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Maddy » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:05 pm

Beats me what this room is for.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Xan » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:09 pm

This is abuse!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Edit: oh. The version I'm more familiar with from a CD has the fellow walking into the wrong room, which turns out to be "abuse" where he just gets yelled at. Apparently that wasn't part of the original TV sketch.
User avatar
Smith1776
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3501
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Smith1776 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:09 pm

I've been eating breakfast for dinner every night this week because I can.

Argue with that. ;D
I still find the James Rickards portfolio fascinating.
bedraggled
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:20 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by bedraggled » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:40 pm

Must I subscribe to or disprove any, or maybe several, aspects of Newtonian physics to report that I am not ill sitting here in Florida- per the title of this thread?

An abundance of your input much appreciated.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:44 pm

stuper1 wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:23 pm
For all of you COVID-19 isolationists, Ramanujan's story was told in an excellent book called "The Man Who Knew Infinity". The 2014 movie of the same name is okay, but sensationalizes a few things, and the book of course is much better.
We saw that movie on an airplane. Very interesting!
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:46 pm

Maddy wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:05 pm
Beats me what this room is for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFkazjodpeQ
User avatar
CT-Scott
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:39 am

Re: Daily "Check In" Thread For Us

Post by CT-Scott » Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:17 pm

Xan wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 9:09 pm
This is abuse!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

Edit: oh. The version I'm more familiar with from a CD has the fellow walking into the wrong room, which turns out to be "abuse" where he just gets yelled at. Apparently that wasn't part of the original TV sketch.
Yes, that's the way I first heard it, also. But it was from my older brother's LP, not a CD. Here's the script:
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php

...and for anyone who doesn't know what an LP is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LP_record
Post Reply