>>10362347>>10365825>>10365833The worst part is that actually is true... if you, as those who originally drew this conclusion, define to mean "is associated with," and it can indeed be proven that that series "is associated with" through actually rigorous methods (zeta regularization, integration, etc.).
The thing is, of course, that nobody uses that notation like that, so you get pop-sci/pop-math retards like Numberphile and their audience who read that Ramanujan wrote , assume that he actually meant that the divergent infinite series of natural numbers sums to a finite negative fraction, and unquestioningly accept it because they are retards to whom math is indistinguishable from wizard magic.
And the "proofs" they use to justify this "sum" absolutely are unrigorous; you actually can algebraically manipulate an absolutely convergent series term-by-term (for instance, you can fiddle with the infinite series of , , and to prove that because those are all absolutely convergent), but you definitely cannot do that to a series that is anything less than absolutely convergent—at least, you cannot do that and expect to get an actual sum—and you especially cannot do that to a series that is demonstrably and obviously divergent like .
...That said, this does mean you can algebraically manipulate like that, since it is absolutely convergent (to ).
But you can't use that to prove that.
I'd hope that this would end all the retarded comparisons to ITT, but I've learned all too well that there is no stopping retards.
