 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
> On 8/1/2015 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
>>> for error recovery.
>>
>> Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
>
> Write this Date in our calenders.
> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
> wrong. :-P
No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/08/2015 08:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
>> Write this Date in our calenders.
>> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
>> wrong. :-P
>
> No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
Haha, 0wn3d!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 8:25 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 8/1/2015 4:36 PM, clipka wrote:
>>>> In fact, the audio CD format uses cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes
>>>> for error recovery.
>>>
>>> Damn, I hate to stand corrected.
>>
>> Write this Date in our calenders.
>> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
>> wrong. :-P
>
> No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
>
Bugrit!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 8:47 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/08/2015 08:25 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.08.2015 um 17:49 schrieb Stephen:
>>> Write this Date in our calenders.
>>> On the first of August two thousand and fourteen. Clipka admitted he was
>>> wrong. :-P
>>
>> No I didn't. Not back /then/. :-P
>
> Haha, 0wn3d!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'something 1.wav.dat' (217 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2015 9:07 PM, Stephen wrote:
> ""
A prize if anyone recognises the voice of the actor.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> There's no grouping like you did in the original proof. Which part of
> the original proof assumes the length of the summation is anything other
> than infinite?
This part of the proof is grouping elements in pairs and summing them up:
(s-4s) = 1+2+3+4+5+ 6+...
-4 -8 -12-...
-3s = 1-2+3-4+5-6+...
> Welcome back BTW :-)
I had some problems with the dreaded "can't get fully qualified domain
name" error (which was incidentally solved by ticking one checkbox in
an obscure system setting. But damned it was hard to figure that out.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > There's no grouping like you did in the original proof. Which part of
> > the original proof assumes the length of the summation is anything other
> > than infinite?
>
> This part of the proof is grouping elements in pairs and summing them up:
>
> (s-4s) = 1+2+3+4+5+ 6+...
> -4 -8 -12-...
> -3s = 1-2+3-4+5-6+...
>
> > Welcome back BTW :-)
>
> I had some problems with the dreaded "can't get fully qualified domain
> name" error (which was incidentally solved by ticking one checkbox in
> an obscure system setting. But damned it was hard to figure that out.)
>
> --
> - Warp
As my knowledge of mathematics only goes up to differential equations (and is
more than somewhat spotty around the edges) I have no idea what zeta functions
are, so I had to actually do some research on why this astoundingly bad
wikipedia article is also astoundingly wrong. Or as they say on TV Tropes
(Warning: Timesink) Not Even Wrong.
https://plus.maths.org/content/infinity-or-just-112
Firstly, the article title is confusing as hell. Secondly, it opens by stating
that the sum of the natural numbers is equal to a value lower than the smallest
term in that sequence. It then purports to offer proof of this concept which is
akin to taking a true statement and tacking on another true statement which
leads to a logical result that is mathematically correct, given the whole, but
which has nothing at all to do with the original premise of the foundational
statement.
So it turns out that the result is mathematically valid, and relates to the
Casimir Effect. The problem I have with it is the astounding level of
intellectual irresponsibility in conflating the sum of Natural Numbers with a
result that clearly requires advanced analytical mathematics that few of the
people reading it will know about. Was this done intentionally in order to make
people research the topic? If so, then it's still quite unethical, since not
everybody will research it properly, and those with only a vague understanding
of the first principles will be confused by it. It's bad enough that the
youtube video presented it the way it did, but the fact that it's now on
wikipedia where the first line of the article can be taken as fact without
considering the rest of the article, and the underlying math and physics
principles, is inexcusable.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's no grouping like you did in the original proof. Which part of
>> the original proof assumes the length of the summation is anything other
>> than infinite?
>
> This part of the proof is grouping elements in pairs and summing them up:
>
> (s-4s) = 1+2+3+4+5+ 6+...
> -4 -8 -12-...
> -3s = 1-2+3-4+5-6+...
This one is different, as there is no assumption that the "..."
(infinite list) has any other properties other than "it goes on
forever". So long as both parts of the sum "go on forever" then there
will always a pair for each item.
However if you try and group elements like:
s = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-...
s = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+...
s = 0+0+0+...
s = 0
Then the "..." in the 3rd (and perhaps 2nd) line makes the assumption
that there are an even number of terms, that the series ends in a "-1".
That (I think) is a wrong assumption, an infinite list/sum doesn't have
any concept of a "last" item.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> However if you try and group elements like:
> s = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-...
> s = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+...
> s = 0+0+0+...
> s = 0
> Then the "..." in the 3rd (and perhaps 2nd) line makes the assumption
> that there are an even number of terms
No, it doesn't. It simply makes the assumption that you can choose
each odd-placed and even-placed number in the series (which is true)
and sum them together (which is also true). This can be done forever.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> s = 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-...
>> s = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+...
>> s = 0+0+0+...
>> s = 0
>
>> Then the "..." in the 3rd (and perhaps 2nd) line makes the assumption
>> that there are an even number of terms
>
> No, it doesn't. It simply makes the assumption that you can choose
> each odd-placed and even-placed number in the series (which is true)
> and sum them together (which is also true). This can be done forever.
Yes, I just realised that you could also write s as:
s =+1+1+1+1+1+...
-1-1-1-1-1-...
= 0+0+0+0+0+...
Which makes no such assumptions.
But then you could probably just as validly (which might not be valid at
all) write s as:
s = +1+1+1+1+1+1+...
-1-1-1-1-...
= 1+1+0+0+0+0+...
So essentially you could "prove" any value you like for s.
Funnily enough if you use the standard formula for the infinite sum of
geometric progressions, you also get 1/2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
