"Magic" regulating functions for divergent series

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

The forum discussion centers on the concept of "magic" regulating functions for divergent series, specifically addressing the value of -1/12 as revisited by Numberphile. Participants explore whether a regulating function that integrates to zero when multiplied by an envelope function qualifies as "magic." The discussion raises questions about the significance of this concept, suggesting that if it were a substantial advancement, more resources would be available beyond a single video. The conversation reflects a mix of curiosity and skepticism regarding the implications of these mathematical ideas.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of divergent series and their properties
  • Familiarity with regulating functions in mathematical analysis
  • Knowledge of integral calculus, particularly integration to infinity
  • Basic comprehension of envelope functions and their role in summation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of regulating functions in the context of divergent series
  • Study the mathematical implications of the value -1/12 in number theory
  • Learn about envelope functions and their applications in summation techniques
  • Explore advanced topics in integral calculus, focusing on convergence and divergence
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and anyone interested in the theoretical aspects of divergent series and their applications in mathematical analysis.

Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,047
Reaction score
780
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