Le 04/08/2015 22:46, Francois Labreque a écrit :
>>
>> (s-4s) = 1+2+3+4+5+ 6+...
>>            -4  -8  -12-...
>> -3s    = 1-2+3-4+5-6+...
>              ^
> TYPO +2.  Not -2.
> Likewise for +6, +10, +14...
>
>
> So:
>
> -3s = 1+2+3+(4-4)+5+6+7+(8-8)+9+10+11+...
> -3s = 1+2+3+(0)+5+6+7+(0)+9+10+11+...

You are on something.

It was not a typo per itself, but the intent to make the -4s part more 
dense than the s part (so as to remove the 4s every 2 terms of s, 
instead of nullifying every 4 terms).

Of course, such intent is dishonest when dealing with infinite number of 
terms. Is  ((s -2s) -2s ) more honest ?

Post a reply to this message