Infinity = -1?

[video=youtube;kIq5CZlg8Rg]http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIq5CZlg8Rg&feature=relmfu[/video]

Mind=blown.

 

I could have swear that the infinite was me...

 

[youtube]HLTBsI4Z4M0[/youtube]

 

Thats one interesting equation.
I'm going to have to say mind = blown as well. D;

 

Let's choose two equal numbers 'a' and 'b'.
When a is equal to b we can write a = b.
Multiply both sides by a. [a^2 = ab]
Subtract b^2 from both sides. [a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2]
You know that a^2 - b^2 = (a - b)(a + b), dont you? If you don't ask Mr. Google.
GG... a is equal to b so a - b = 0
0 x (a + b) = 0...

Everything = 0.

 

Only if they're equal?

 

THERE ARE PICTURES! IT CANNOT BE WRONG SIR.

Please stfu and take your gtfo with you D:!


....

 

This only makes sense if you implicitly assume that divergent series follows normal arithmetic laws. This is a common mathematical fallacy, and can be dis proven with the work of medieval mathematician Nicole Oresme. More concisely, summation methods make this wrong, known as Regularity, Linearity, and Stability. All very good reads, if you're interested.

*EDIT* I didn't see this until afterwards, and I'm sorry but this is wrong too :-(

This is known as "division by zero". This can be disproven in one statement: divison by zero is undefined; therefore, the argument is invalid. George Berkley actually wrote and criticized this in his dispute of infinitesimal calculus by proving that assigning a value to a / 0 is a mathematical impossibility. It's just easy for people who don't firmly understand to get sucked into these things.

 

And where is the division Mr.Smarty?

 

Well, funny enough, you only got to the fourth equation in the fallacy. It's supposed to go like this

1. a=b
2. a^2 = ab
3. a^2 - b^2 =ab -b^2n
4. (a-b)(a+b) =b(a-b) This is where you stopped
5. (a-b) needs to be divided out, or your argument makes even less since. So now we say a+b =b
6. b+b=b
7. 1b=b
8. 1=0

Line 5 is false. Implying that the only possible solution for lines 5, 6, and 7, that a = b = 0, this flaw is evident again in line 7, where you must divide by b (0) in order to produce the fallacy


You can also say it this way:

1. x=0
2. x(x-1)=0
3. x-1=0
4. x=1
5. 1=0

Line 2>3 is false, started by assuming x to be equal to 0; therefore, on the second to the third line: if x = 0, then division by x is meaningless.

 

id call it graphical misrepresentation he is aligning them for looks, but in fact the bottom row should be shifted to the right by 1 term, so at any given point the negative number is half of the positive (same with any new term added)

since terms r added forever, it means that the result of his equation is always infinity/2 which is still infinity

way to go

hint: his bs indicates that at any given point, the number of negative terms is higher by 1 than the number of positive terms when in fact at any given point the number of terms should be equal and the first negative term is half of the first positive term lol

how he does it:
2+4
-1-2-4
add up to -1

2+4+8
-1-2-4-8
add up to -1

how it should be:
2+4
-1-2
add up to 3

2+4+8
-1-2-4
add up to 7

u see? whenever the number of terms is equal as it should be, it keeps on increasing at the rate of half the first series

since the first series is a multiple of 2 and the second is a multiple of -1, adding the 2nd series gives u the original series

 

Nice :3 /10char