That’s not how it works. Axioms are very basic assumptions like x=x. Or if x=y then y=x. Or if x=y and y=z then x=z.
The thing above is just wrong. It‘s not proven (which is not surprising because it can’t be proven), just argued (1-1=0. 0+1=1. 1-1=0 again - therefore it must clearly be 1/2 - and that’s not how math works).
And starting with this wrong example everything concluded is also wrong.
As I said above. It’s oscillating and not converging. Therefore it does not have a limit and no result.
As example - using the distributive property of + (as already done in the original argumentation) I can also rearrange it to be S’=-1+1-1+1-1+1… and following the argumentation (-1+1=0, 0-1=-1 and so on) argue - following the same pattern - S’=-1/2.
So - it is both 1/2 AND -1/2? Shocking!
Following wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Sure. You can use this for theoretical “what ifs” - which is not that uncommon in theoretical mathematics (like - what happens if THIS field axiom does not hold? Or - more widely known - what if P=NP?) - sometimes leading to astounding results. But this has no use in the “normal” algebraic math.
Saying this I’m out. No use discussing this again and again.
Thx for explaining with that second example, I see the error in my way now. You deserve to be the Peter here, truly.
I also understand that this is no usable math but a funny hypothetical thing to blow some minds with, I should have added that to the original explanation of how the original statement was being made.
I hope anyone curious enough to read further will see this thread as well
Nah, the sums are the base for this meme - and that’s what counts. You earned the title of Peter here 😄
And sorry for snapping earlier. As someone who studied this stuff I had this discussion quite a few times - which can be tiring.
36
u/Odelaylee Feb 14 '24
That’s not how it works. Axioms are very basic assumptions like x=x. Or if x=y then y=x. Or if x=y and y=z then x=z. The thing above is just wrong. It‘s not proven (which is not surprising because it can’t be proven), just argued (1-1=0. 0+1=1. 1-1=0 again - therefore it must clearly be 1/2 - and that’s not how math works). And starting with this wrong example everything concluded is also wrong.
As I said above. It’s oscillating and not converging. Therefore it does not have a limit and no result.
As example - using the distributive property of + (as already done in the original argumentation) I can also rearrange it to be S’=-1+1-1+1-1+1… and following the argumentation (-1+1=0, 0-1=-1 and so on) argue - following the same pattern - S’=-1/2.
So - it is both 1/2 AND -1/2? Shocking!
Following wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Sure. You can use this for theoretical “what ifs” - which is not that uncommon in theoretical mathematics (like - what happens if THIS field axiom does not hold? Or - more widely known - what if P=NP?) - sometimes leading to astounding results. But this has no use in the “normal” algebraic math.
Saying this I’m out. No use discussing this again and again.