Is this guy on to something?

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
7,710
1,516
He's not on to anything new in mathematics since it is already known that you can't draw valid conclusions about divergent series by regrouping their terms. Is he making a useful analogy to something done by quantum physicists (who are much less fussy about divergence than mathematicians)? I don't know. Perhaps a forum member who is a quantum physicist will tell us.
 
  • #3
35,299
7,164
The title should be "Is this guy on something?"

Here is what he has:
1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... = 1*(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
= (2 - 1)(1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ...)
= 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ... - 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - ...
This is the step where it breaks down. The line above is essentially [itex]\infty - \infty[/itex], which is what is called an indeterminate form, along with 0/0 and several others.

If he were dealing with convergent series (he isn't), normal arithmetic would be applicable. Both series are divergent, though, so doing arithmetic with them leads to an erroneous result.
 
  • #4
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,211
8,536
It is possible to be a theoretical physicist and still be an idiot but in this particular case I don't think he is ... he's just playing a mind-game on folks who don't understand the arithmetic of infinity. Basically, he's saying 2 times infinity is different than infinity but he hides it by not using the infinity symbol but instead using the series and pretending that he can treat the series differently that he would treat the infinity symbol.

You can prove anything if you play invalid games with zero and infinity.

EDIT: I see Mark44 and I were typing at the same time and his statement "Both series are divergent, though, so doing arithmetic with them leads to an erroneous result." is a more elegant explanation than mine (but amounts to the same thing)
 
  • #5
Mute
Homework Helper
1,388
10
Perhaps watching the follow-up video (linked to at the end of the movie, but I'll link here as well) will answer some questions: video link

If you're left with more questions than answers after that (which you likely will be), the 'technique' which physicists use is called "regularization" or "zeta regularization" in some specific instances.

The basic idea is that sometimes when you run into divergent sums in your calculations (in physical problems), they're really not supposed to be divergent sums - they should be something else that's finite, but due to approximations or the theory being incomplete you get this divergent beast. The regularization is a trick to replace the divergent sum with something finite, which is what the sum is "supposed to be".
 
  • #8
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,415
687
He's not on to anything new in mathematics since it is already known that you can't draw valid conclusions about divergent series by regrouping their terms.
So don't do that then.

If he were dealing with convergent series (he isn't), normal arithmetic would be applicable. Both series are divergent, though, so doing arithmetic with them leads to an erroneous result.
Sure you can do arithmetic with divergent series. Euler lead the way. Hardy wrote the book. G.H.Hardy, Divergent Series
 

Related Threads on Is this guy on to something?

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
725
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
1K
Top