>>8142611
-1/12

>>8142611
Ramanujan Sum video followed by the Parker Square video

>>8142611
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbZCECvoaTA

>>8142807
Some people are just more passionate than you anon

>>8142613
Can somebody pls link this?

>>8142613
Okay I found it, so why the fuck are they acting like that sum can hold a value? Am I retarded or are they?

The fact that they write on what like old, brown, paper grocery bags.

>>8143025
They're refusing to write Ramanujan summation x = y (R) (you can also write R above the =) for fear that it will be over the general public's heads. It's similar to writing x = y (mod z). They do allude to it.

>>8143033
Can you explain it to a simpleton like me? First of all is it even right to say [infinite sum] = number? To me finding the theoretical "sum" seems more like a tool than an actual mathematical fact.

>>8143038
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this, but to my understanding, it's literally saying "using the Ramanujan summation technique, this is the answer we get" and thus in that sense is perfectly valid. Using a general = without some sort of indication that something special is being done is incredibly misleading, however. Hopefully that helps you understand my link modular arithmetic, where again a different type of "equality" is introduced.

Again, not particularly knowledgeable, but supposedly the values given by Ramanujan summation give useful and apparently accurate results when substituted for infinite sums in physics.

>>8143046
Alright. I'm not a math guy, I'm a programmer, so when I see an equal sign being treated as "open to interpretation" I get pretty triggered.

>>8143053
Ah, but we probably piss off mathematicians every time we mutate a variable. Unless you're one of the pure functional guys. Regardless, I agree.

>>8143038
>Can you explain it to a simpleton like me?

That's literally what the Numberphile video does, except they don't say "Ramunajan" before "sum."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlpYjrbujG0
>hey let's print out a number with over 22 million digits on paper for the lolz

>>8143053
But it's the same thing as a limits and any (infinite) sums.
You have to define what the limit of a convergent sequence is. This just defines it for a different kind of convergence.

>>8143095
>This just defines it for a different kind of convergence.
This is the first time I've ever seen divergent described as "a different kind of convergence".

>>8143110
Not all divergent series are Cesàro convergent.
Not sure if the same is true for Ramanujan.

The study of non-summable sequences isn't useful to me as of yet.

>>8143122
nvm. it holds for all divergent series.
That's a pretty neat trick.
>>8143053
But you've heard people say that 360 degrees is the same as 0 degrees.
You could instead say that 360 is equal to 0 mod 360.

>>8142637
>being triggered by lexical variation

All of them. For some reason I can't stand the sound of sharpies on whatever paper they use.