"Magic" regulating functions for divergent series

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Swamp Thing
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convergence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of "magic" regulating functions for divergent series, specifically in relation to the value -1/12 as revisited by a Numberphile video. Participants explore the implications of choosing regulating functions that converge to specific values without discarding terms and question the significance of this approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether a regulating function that leads to an integral of zero is considered "magic" and if this represents a significant advancement in the field.
  • Others express skepticism about the profundity of the claims made in the Numberphile video, suggesting that if it were truly groundbreaking, more resources would be available online.
  • One participant reflects on their understanding of the questions posed, indicating that clarity in wording may be necessary for better engagement.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between the regulating function and the envelope function, with a participant attempting to clarify how these interact in the context of summing terms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the significance of the regulating functions or the claims made in the video. Multiple viewpoints exist regarding the implications and clarity of the concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of the regulating functions and their integrals, indicating a need for further exploration of these concepts.

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
786
This recent video on Numberphile revisits -1 / 12 😱 after a hiatus of nearly 10 years.



One point that they make is that there are infinitely many choices of regulating function that converge directly to the correct value (e.g. -1/12) without having to throw away "infinities" or terms of order N, N^2 etc.

Q1 : Is it true that:- If we choose a regulating function and then look at the integral corresponding to the weighted sum, and if that integral taken to infinity is zero, then that regulating function is a "magic" one? (They don't say so in the video).

Q2: If the above is true, is this particular aspect really a profound advance, or are they hyping it up just a little bit for YouTube?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No Numberphile went back to ##-\frac{1}{12}## again!? Seriously?! Last time it created such a faff...

My very limited maths knowledge means that I can't help on Q1 - but for Q2 I can imagine that this is the case, if it were so profound of an advance, there should be more on the internet than a Numberphile video about it (and I can't seem to find a ton of stuff about it on the internet about it, but maybe that's just my abysmal internet searching skills coming in)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Swamp Thing
TensorCalculus said:
No Numberphile went back to ##-\frac{1}{12}## again!? Seriously?! Last time it created such a faff...

My very limited maths knowledge means that I can't help on Q1 - but for Q2 I can imagine that this is the case, if it were so profound of an advance, there should be more on the internet than a Numberphile video about it (and I can't seem to find a ton of stuff about it on the internet about it, but maybe that's just my abysmal internet searching skills coming in)

It's a while since I posted those questions, and it took me a minute to even understand Q1. Which could mean I haven't worded it very clearly.

Edit: I think it would be clearer to just say "if a candidate function for the regulating function integrates to zero ... "

Edit again: No, that isn't right. It's the product of the regulating function and the envelope function that defines the terms to be summed. That product has to integrate to zero from 0 to infinity. In the case of 1+2+3.. the envelope function is f(n) = n, so the product is trivially the regulating function itself.

I think.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TensorCalculus
Swamp Thing said:
It's a while since I posted those questions, and it took me a minute to even understand Q1. Which could mean I haven't worded it very clearly.

Edit: I think it would be clearer to just say "if a candidate function for the regulating function integrates to zero ... "

Edit again: No, that isn't right. It's the product of the regulating function and the envelope function that defines the terms to be summed. That product has to integrate to zero from 0 to infinity. In the case of 1+2+3.. the envelope function is f(n) = n, so the product is trivially the regulating function itself.

I think.
Ah yes: I just realised the date.
Either way, I had no idea that Numberphile went back to -1/12 after so many years... I don't know what to make of that haha.

Even with a clearly worded q1... doubt I would have been able to help haha :D
But it's probably fun coming back after a year and a bit and looking back on how you worded the questions and seeing how you could have done it better!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K