Re: [CPT-FGC] Re: Hi
- From: Di Lhong <numotd@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: cpt-fgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:12:32 +0200
MATH!!! GG
Interesting input on "Just because a point can move between 0 and 1,
there's no reason it can't be at 0.5 (which implies continuous, not
discrete, motion)." Never thought of it that way before...
Talking about debate,
Anyone saw the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate? was interesting...
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > While its awesome,I think its rubbish to make the sum of a series of
> numbers which you don't know when will end its average
>
> This is what the debate is about. It's clearly not "rubbish" because it
> has real world applications that can be proven mathematically.
>
> 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 doesn't converge. But if you define it to converge at 1/2
> you can use it to obtain practical results.
>
> If you say that it's "wrong" to say the series converges because it
> doesn't make sense mathematically, then you must also accept that even
> though taking 10 years of life off a 5 year old makes sense mathematically
> (-5 years), it's also "wrong".
>
> Real world objects may follow mathematical formulae, but there's no
> guarantee that they do so discretely. Just because a point can move
> between 0 and 1, there's no reason it can't be at 0.5 (which implies
> continuous, not discrete, motion).
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM, G B <sigma.g19@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> While its awesome,I think its rubbish to make the sum of a series of
>> numbers which you don't know when will end its average... because whether
>> you stopped on an even or uneven place in the series... the answer is never
>> 1/2. Whether you went up to 1 million or 1 million and 1, the result is
>> either 1 or 0.
>>
>> The rest is simply smart manipulation of terms. Then again, I know
>> nothing about string theory... at all.
>>
>> Still, while I'm impressed by this, it is a rather silly idea. If you
>> keep adding numbers... cannot come up with a negative number, let alone, a
>> fraction...
>>
>> Just saying that is not enough though, since the maths seems correct.
>> LOL. Looking forward to see how this unfolds.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, here's the other side of the debate:
>>>
>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum+%281+to+infinitiy%29
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww
>>>>
>>>> Very good YouTube channel, btw.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:39 PM, G B <sigma.g19@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> nope, tell me more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Ilitirit Sama <ilitirit@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is anyone following the "sum of natural numbers" debate currently
>>>>>> raging on the net?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + .... + n + ... = ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
