You’re only raging because the only defense you have is a YouTube video, which i already saw the proof of about 10 years ago.
At least give an actual insult instead of impotent “i guess you failed the course you don’t remember blah blah”, for a course I finished the second part of last semester. So no reason to forget it as I’m expected to use it still.
You should have read about the topic instead of whatever this response is.
You are the one devolving to ad hominem. You haven’t addressed a point I have made in your last two comments. You seem to think that a YouTube video is some lowly source that doesn’t warrant merit. How sad then that you were proven wrong by a youtube video. YOU are the one who lacks any defense because you KNOW you were wrong, and by failing to address my points with facts you are proving that point.
“how sad” sure I’m at uni and you need a YouTube video to defend yourself because you don’t know the subject matter, andyou are trying to get my attention.
You have more important stuff to do than continuing this thread, might i suggest reading about the subject matter on Wikipedia?
Lmao you replied to me in the first place, exactly how am I trying to get your attention? I already had it from the beginning…
You gripe about the merits of a youtube video (which I only linked to because I’m not gonna spell the whole damn proof out for you here), and you tell me to go read wikipedia? I’m guessing you are just being sarcastic there, because if not… sheesh. Yikes. Oof, even.
Wikipedia is extremely good for mathematics, that’s one, two is that the “proof” is inherently flawed as it leads to a very trivial contradiction.
I could walk you through the proof to so you how it’s wrong, but you are obviously more concerned with proving to a university student that your high school level understanding of maths is better because you saw a YouTube video.
I stumbled upon your other dialogue here while browsing the thread. I’m honestly not certain whether or not you’re just trolling, but in case you’re being serious… a word of genuine advice from someone who has gone into a field that has a lot to do with mathematics:
You seem like you’re an undergrad student, potentially from the UK, potentially majoring in mathematics or a mathematics adjacent field. You do seem passionate about it, I can give you that. But seriously, friend, the way you handle discourse, debate & dialectic, and reasoning are all massively ill-equipped to actually handle working in this field. If you don’t change you will fail in your career. This isn’t meant to be mean, it is a legitimate and fair warning. I’ve met a lot of people just like you over the course of my own career, and they don’t last very long if at all.
Separate ego from argumentation. Engage evidence on its own terms. Recognize that complex results sometimes defy intuition. Value clarity and logic over signalling status. The responses you are getting here are really light compared to what actual supervisors and peers are going to throw at you out there. You utterly failed to sway or convince anyone because you refused to even try. The problem is patently you here. I suppose I’m trying to tell you here and now, when it’s just an irrelevant internet forum, versus later when your dreams and economic security get crushed because you can’t maintain a research position. If you just continue on how you are, you’re going to alienate all your peers. Nobody wants to work with someone who’s more concerned with personally being right than finding the truth. That’s what you’ve done here, in all the comments of yours I have read. For example, if you were actually concerned with the truth you would’ve outlined your reasoning for why the proof regarding the limit of -1/12 is incorrect. You didn’t even begin outlining or clarifying the problem space. What is it that you find objectionable here? Because I don’t necessarily disagree with you, that limit does imply nonsensical results in a broad context. That’s not the context it is posited in, however. -1/12 is pretty famously derived from the Riemann Zeta Function evaluated at -1. If you’d engaged with the other guy’s source in good faith, you’d understand that he was approaching the problem in that space. You’d then be able to formulate a counterthesis that appropriately addresses the argument at hand instead of strawmanning and posturing. You didn’t do that though. Why? Because you were more concerned with being personally correct than finding out the truth. So your discourse stalled and you convinced nobody of anything at all! We’re not here to debate, we’re here to engage in dialectic.
Final word of advice - drop the ad hominem attacks, glaring assumptions, and refusal to engage with sources based on tenuous reasons. Those are going to prevent you from breaking into the career in the first place. Don’t attack people, attack arguments and lines of reasoning. Attacking someone personally doesn’t do anything but undermine your own credit.
Hahaha ok then show me how the proof is flawed? You will have a LOT of mathematicians and scientists extremely interested in your proof.
Also, I learned this stuff in high school, but I went to college a decade ago so… maybe when you get done with math 253 and get into some higher level courses that cover complex analysis, you will change your tune.
Wikipedia IS indeed great for mathematics, as is a youtube video from university professors who teach and apply these mathematics. Exactly what is wrong with a youtube video featuring high level math professors teaching concepts about mathematics? You just keep saying “durr your only defense is a youtube video” when it literally is not “my only defense” it is just a single source I used to prove you wrong. You never gave a rebuttal to my point, just tried to attack the source. You say you know about the video and the concept, but you still make false and baseless claims that I already proved wrong. You are simply butthurt that you were wrong.
This guy argued with me somewhere else in this thread. He engaged in all the exact same rhetorical strategies and was similarly bone-headed when it came to actual, applied concepts in math. I don’t think you’re gonna get very far with this one, man. BRAT is an acronym for BlackRoseAmongThorns, and they’re really living up to the name!
Me citing a youtube video proved your statement wrong and this is your response.
Guessing you failed the class you were studying this in? Definitely doesn’t sound like you remember much.
You’re only raging because the only defense you have is a YouTube video, which i already saw the proof of about 10 years ago.
At least give an actual insult instead of impotent “i guess you failed the course you don’t remember blah blah”, for a course I finished the second part of last semester. So no reason to forget it as I’m expected to use it still.
You should have read about the topic instead of whatever this response is.
You are the one devolving to ad hominem. You haven’t addressed a point I have made in your last two comments. You seem to think that a YouTube video is some lowly source that doesn’t warrant merit. How sad then that you were proven wrong by a youtube video. YOU are the one who lacks any defense because you KNOW you were wrong, and by failing to address my points with facts you are proving that point.
“how sad” sure I’m at uni and you need a YouTube video to defend yourself because you don’t know the subject matter, andyou are trying to get my attention.
You have more important stuff to do than continuing this thread, might i suggest reading about the subject matter on Wikipedia?
Lmao you replied to me in the first place, exactly how am I trying to get your attention? I already had it from the beginning…
You gripe about the merits of a youtube video (which I only linked to because I’m not gonna spell the whole damn proof out for you here), and you tell me to go read wikipedia? I’m guessing you are just being sarcastic there, because if not… sheesh. Yikes. Oof, even.
Wikipedia is extremely good for mathematics, that’s one, two is that the “proof” is inherently flawed as it leads to a very trivial contradiction.
I could walk you through the proof to so you how it’s wrong, but you are obviously more concerned with proving to a university student that your high school level understanding of maths is better because you saw a YouTube video.
You should reflect on that.
I stumbled upon your other dialogue here while browsing the thread. I’m honestly not certain whether or not you’re just trolling, but in case you’re being serious… a word of genuine advice from someone who has gone into a field that has a lot to do with mathematics:
You seem like you’re an undergrad student, potentially from the UK, potentially majoring in mathematics or a mathematics adjacent field. You do seem passionate about it, I can give you that. But seriously, friend, the way you handle discourse, debate & dialectic, and reasoning are all massively ill-equipped to actually handle working in this field. If you don’t change you will fail in your career. This isn’t meant to be mean, it is a legitimate and fair warning. I’ve met a lot of people just like you over the course of my own career, and they don’t last very long if at all.
Separate ego from argumentation. Engage evidence on its own terms. Recognize that complex results sometimes defy intuition. Value clarity and logic over signalling status. The responses you are getting here are really light compared to what actual supervisors and peers are going to throw at you out there. You utterly failed to sway or convince anyone because you refused to even try. The problem is patently you here. I suppose I’m trying to tell you here and now, when it’s just an irrelevant internet forum, versus later when your dreams and economic security get crushed because you can’t maintain a research position. If you just continue on how you are, you’re going to alienate all your peers. Nobody wants to work with someone who’s more concerned with personally being right than finding the truth. That’s what you’ve done here, in all the comments of yours I have read. For example, if you were actually concerned with the truth you would’ve outlined your reasoning for why the proof regarding the limit of -1/12 is incorrect. You didn’t even begin outlining or clarifying the problem space. What is it that you find objectionable here? Because I don’t necessarily disagree with you, that limit does imply nonsensical results in a broad context. That’s not the context it is posited in, however. -1/12 is pretty famously derived from the Riemann Zeta Function evaluated at -1. If you’d engaged with the other guy’s source in good faith, you’d understand that he was approaching the problem in that space. You’d then be able to formulate a counterthesis that appropriately addresses the argument at hand instead of strawmanning and posturing. You didn’t do that though. Why? Because you were more concerned with being personally correct than finding out the truth. So your discourse stalled and you convinced nobody of anything at all! We’re not here to debate, we’re here to engage in dialectic.
Final word of advice - drop the ad hominem attacks, glaring assumptions, and refusal to engage with sources based on tenuous reasons. Those are going to prevent you from breaking into the career in the first place. Don’t attack people, attack arguments and lines of reasoning. Attacking someone personally doesn’t do anything but undermine your own credit.
Hahaha ok then show me how the proof is flawed? You will have a LOT of mathematicians and scientists extremely interested in your proof.
Also, I learned this stuff in high school, but I went to college a decade ago so… maybe when you get done with math 253 and get into some higher level courses that cover complex analysis, you will change your tune.
Wikipedia IS indeed great for mathematics, as is a youtube video from university professors who teach and apply these mathematics. Exactly what is wrong with a youtube video featuring high level math professors teaching concepts about mathematics? You just keep saying “durr your only defense is a youtube video” when it literally is not “my only defense” it is just a single source I used to prove you wrong. You never gave a rebuttal to my point, just tried to attack the source. You say you know about the video and the concept, but you still make false and baseless claims that I already proved wrong. You are simply butthurt that you were wrong.
This guy argued with me somewhere else in this thread. He engaged in all the exact same rhetorical strategies and was similarly bone-headed when it came to actual, applied concepts in math. I don’t think you’re gonna get very far with this one, man. BRAT is an acronym for BlackRoseAmongThorns, and they’re really living up to the name!