Is the sum 1+2+3+4+... really equal to -1/12?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaun Culver
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the assertion that the infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... equals -1/12. Participants explore its implications, historical context, and relevance in fields such as quantum physics and string theory, while questioning the validity of this claim.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the series can equal -1/12, noting that the sum of positive numbers cannot be negative and that the series diverges.
  • Others suggest that the series has significance in certain contexts, particularly in quantum physics and string theory, referencing its historical importance and connection to Ramanujan's work.
  • A participant mentions that the notation used in the equation may be misleading and that it represents a trick of notation rather than a straightforward mathematical truth.
  • Some participants express confusion over the notation and the comparison between Ramanujan's summation and conventional summation methods.
  • One participant introduces the concept of analytic continuation, suggesting that it may provide a framework for understanding the result of -1/12.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of papers linking the Riemann zeta function to physical phenomena, with some participants dismissing these connections as lacking rigorous justification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity of the claim that 1 + 2 + 3 + ... equals -1/12, with multiple competing views presented regarding its significance and interpretation. The discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in understanding the assumptions behind the notation and the definitions used in the discussion. The mathematical steps involved in Ramanujan summation and analytic continuation are not fully resolved.

Shaun Culver
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
How can

1+2+3+4+... = -1/12

?

Apparently, this series has been used in quantum physics - giving it physical significance! True/False?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
yea that's definitely wrong, that series diverges
 
it has signifcance to others due to the perception of what they came up with there thought. it seems like you don't want to grant it the same significance the others have.

you asked (how can) so find how meany ways if can't be then find how meany ways it can't be, then compair to what others have said. mainly to bring your self more understanding of what makes it and why its true or false -.- this way you can teach your self the same concepts they were teached by others. anyways... its true in a few ways and false in more... just ask what would make it false or true and why, then you would know how it can and how it can't without being told by others. So i won't spoil your learning of the workings of this world, by just telling you. but i will say a way how you can learn for your self :D
 
first signt it is wrong: the sum of any real positive numbers cannot be negative.

second: even if the result you posted was positive, 1+2+3+4+... its terms are of an arithmetic sequence and therefore it diverges. so it cannot equal any real number.
 
shaunculver said:
How can

1+2+3+4+... = -1/12

?

Apparently, this series has been used in quantum physics - giving it physical significance! True/False?

It's a trick, a trick of notation.

This equation is of historic importance, and comes from Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887 - 1920).

He was basically a poor Indian who didn't have any formal mathematical schooling, so he made up his own syntax. What that series really represents is:

1/(1^-1) + 1/(2^-1) + 1/(3^-1) + 1/(4^-1) + ... + 1/(n^-1) = -1/12

It was a pretty important discovery for analyzing the Riemann zeta landscape, and Ramanujan did the whole thing on his own apparently, which greatly impressed Brittan's Hardy and Littlewood.

As for the quantum physics usage, I believe the distribution in the Riemann zeta looks similar to something with electron distribution.
 
Xislaben2 said:
It's a trick, a trick of notation.

This equation is of historic importance, and comes from Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887 - 1920).

He was basically a poor Indian who didn't have any formal mathematical schooling, so he made up his own syntax. What that series really represents is:

1/(1^-1) + 1/(2^-1) + 1/(3^-1) + 1/(4^-1) + ... + 1/(n^-1) = -1/12

It was a pretty important discovery for analyzing the Riemann zeta landscape, and Ramanujan did the whole thing on his own apparently, which greatly impressed Brittan's Hardy and Littlewood.

As for the quantum physics usage, I believe the distribution in the Riemann zeta looks similar to something with electron distribution.

Thank you. This is elegant. This is profound!
 
How would you set this series up in mathematica code to give a sensible answer?
 
Last edited:
shaunculver said:
How would you set this series up in mathematica code to give a sensible answer?
http://files.liveadmaker.com/F/11767471/Image.gif
This equation produces an error.

Couldn't tell you, I'm much better at reading about mathematics than actually putting it into practice :(


du Satoy, Marcus . The Music Of Primes: Searching to Solve The Greatest Mystery in Mathematics. New York: Harpercollins, 2004. (p137)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Thank you for the link (Big-T) & the reference (Xislaben). I have read (on John Baez's website) that this equality is important in string theory.
 
  • #11
The Stability of Electron Orbital Shells based on a Model of the Riemann-Zeta Function

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-01.PDF
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Sorry, I don't get it

\sum^n_{r = 1} r = \sum^n_{r = 1} \frac{1}{r^{-1}}

Says the same thing to me, unless we define the $-$ sign differently.

I don't see the trick in the notation.
 
  • #13
stabu said:
Sorry, I don't get it

\sum^n_{r = 1} r = \sum^n_{r = 1} \frac{1}{r^{-1}}

Says the same thing to me, unless we define the $-$ sign differently.

I don't see the trick in the notation.

The problem is that you compare the Ramanujan's sum with a normal sum..
 
  • #14
Ramanujan summation is a formal way to sum series that would otherwise diverge. I can give only a small example of 'how it works'; I can't even prove the 1 + 2 + 3 + ... example yet.

Let a_n = (-1)^n. Then the series is
S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - ...
-1+S = -1 + 1 - 1 + ...

Adding the two,
2S - 1 = 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
2S - 1 = 0
S = 1/2
 
  • #16
Xislaben2 said:
The Stability of Electron Orbital Shells based on a Model of the Riemann-Zeta Function

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-01.PDF

Ridiculous numerology coming from a journal I've never heard of.

Just a cursory glance turns up several factual errors, no real physical justifications, and essentially, the whole paper amounts to the ridiculously shallow observation that the Z of atoms with a single electron in their valence shell (a set of 17 numbers) corresponds to some of the Riemann zeta primes.

The reality is that orbital filling is perfectly well-understood as following from the Pauli principle and allowed combinations of quantum numbers. That sequence is trivially derivable and looks nothing like the Riemann zeta function.

Stupidest thing I've seen all day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
I was under the impression that it was more sum
S_{p} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^{p}}
was only convergent for p greater than one. But if you take its analytic continuation of the function then you obtain the result
S_{-1} = \frac{-1}{12}. [/itex]<br /> So I think it reduces to a question of analytic continuation. <br /> <br /> This is what I remember from a course in string theory but at the same time I felt a little strange about it as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
230K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K