Why do mathematicians have this weird unhealthy obsession with proving to the world that math is "fun" and not at all monotonous and unappealing to most people? Nobody questions the importance of mathematics, so why can't they just be satisfied by that, being important? You don't see this type of behavior from physicists or other fields of science, they're perfectly fine with obscurity, only math cunts are desperate to convince regular people that their autistic equations are totally Super Fun and Everyone Can Do It.
>>16805585I'd evaluate her expression if you know what I mean.
>>16805585The public needs a certain level of understanding or they start thinking things are sorcery
>>16805585wtf are you talking about, OP?i've never met a mathematician that sells their shit as "fun".most mathematicians don't give a shit about applications or "usefulness" either.it's true, most people can do math, but like an instrument, it takes practice, can't be mastered overnight, and is impossible to assess how good a person is at it just by looking at themso when a neophyte meets someone that is knowledgeable and fluent about the subject after struggling with it themselves, they just assume that that person is "just good at math" without realizing that person spent a lot of time to get that good.
math] \displaystyle\begin{align*} \sum_{n=1}^{ \infty} \frac{1}{n} &= 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{5} + \frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{7} + \frac{1}{8} + \cdots \\&> 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \left (\frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4} \right ) + \left ( \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8} \right ) + \cdots \\&= 1 + \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n \cdot \frac{1}{2} = \infty \end{align*} [/math]
[math] \displaystyle\begin{align*}\sum_{n=1}^{ \infty} \frac{1}{n} &= 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{4}+ \frac{1}{5} + \frac{1}{6} + \frac{1}{7} + \frac{1}{8} + \cdots \\&> 1 + \frac{1}{2} + \left (\frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4} \right ) +\left ( \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8} + \frac{1}{8} \right ) + \cdots \\&= 1 + \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n \cdot \frac{1}{2} = \infty\end{align*}[/math]
>>16805585I don’t know anyone who claims math is fun or interesting to anyone who isn’t a mathematician.Actually only physicists claim physics is awesome and cooler than sex.Math is hard and often becomes Herculean levels of effort and suffering the deeper you go.>>16805654I would still rather do this than talk to a woman.
>>16805585>nobody questions the importance of mathematicsliterally every dumbass says "MaTh Is UsLeSs" sometimes adding that CS or physics is not useless. you can scroll /sci/ to see this
>>16805654Cute, ridiculously informal, and incorrect.
>>16805708 the harmonic series does not have a finite limit: it is a divergent series. Its divergence was proven in the 14th century by Nicole Oresme using a precursor to the Cauchy condensation test for the convergence of infinite series.
>>16805654Limit[Sum[1/k, {k, 1, 2^n}]/(1 + n/2), n -> Infinity] = Log[4]
>>16805764lim (1+a/n)^n = e^a
>>16805654Exp[Sum[1/k, {k, 1, 2^n}]] < 4^(1 + n/2)
>>16805585lots of people have math anxiety, it is wholesome that nerds at least try to make the normies fee at ease with math
>You don't see this type of behavior from physicists or other fields of scienceIt's less in physicists, but you have it there too
>>16805781But they shouldn't. Math (I mean real math - as in trying to discover something new, not just doing calculations) isn't fun:Let's say you're a carpenter and you happened to do a bad job - you're still left with at least a bad chair at the end of the day.If you're a mathematician you can waste literal years of extremely difficult effort trying to prove something and have literally nothing to show for it after the fact.
>>16805801>nothing to showno, with this kind of a deep dive this mathematician can show a lot of things he discovered, created, and learned. wasting years will result in this - a good grasp of the problem, even if not resolved. a negative result is still a result
>>16805820There're infinitely many approaches to a problem in mathematics - so value of a negative result in mathematics - by mathematical rules - is (approaching) zero.
>>16805834i physically felt how my brain cells died reading this. it's a fucking infohazard
Behold a real world mathematician giving an actual flying fuck whether you find mathematics fun.
>>16805654>>16805729Oresme's proof proposes a map from a set to its own power set. This fails by Cantor's theorem. There are other valid proofs of divergence but this one doesn't actually work.
>>16805585I don't know. It's like they think if they promote it as "fun", more people will get better at it. But it's innate. If you don't get it, it will never be fun. You can't practice your way to success past a low level.
>>16805585It's only monotonous and unappealing because the school system was designed to create factory drones like you.
>>16805919In other words you were never taught real mathematics. Real mathematics is fun, what you were taught isn't.
>>16805875what a fucking chad. big w for perelman
>>16805729The series diverges.Your proof is wrong.
>>16806042diverge doesn't mean what you think it means
>>16806057I know exactly what divergence is.Your proof containd arithmetical errors and is simply incorrect.>b-but i got the write answer :PEventually the randomly walking drunk will find home.
>>16805585because they’re bad at teaching it and making it “fun” distracts from that
>>16805708Formalism is a disease
>>16805845Not an argument.
>>16805590I would expand her bracketsI would put my penis in her pooperif you know what I mean
>>16805834E = MC^2 + AI type post
>>16806344You could just say Indian type post
>>16806244So is your opinion.
>>16806344Probably a hindpoo faggot
>>16805585Math is fun and, unfortunately, it is also monotonous and unappealing to most people. I don't think I've seen many people try to convince the average person that math is fun but I have met people that are very passionate about mathematics. I have seen professors tell the average dumbass that math is a beautiful thing and that the myth that it isn't creative is wrong since the creativity lies in how you get to your conclusion (proof) and not the answer itself, of which there is only one correct answer. Mathematics really is beautiful.Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty — a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.-Bertrand Russell>>16805708>>16805877I know you just explained it, but how is Oresme's proof not valid? I always thought that it wasn't built on a rigorous foundation, but it still is correct since you have found an infinite sum that diverges that will always be smaller than the harmonic series. The sum of the first n terms of the harmonic series will always be bigger than the sum of the first n terms of this divergent sum. How is that not valid? Isn't there a term by term comparison test taught in introductory calculus courses?
>>16806452The other anon isn't me. In my opinion, Oresme's inequality maps N to 2^N. This isn't a mainstream opinion and you shouldn't believe me or anyone else here. Nevertheless, given who I know and where I work, I predict that it will eventually be mainstreamed.
>>16805585sneaky cunts try to trick you into thinking math is fun by calling themselves math magicians
>>16806456>In my opinion>given who I know and where I workAre you fucking serious right now? Are you just larping on here just seeing if somebody calls you out on your bullshit? Or maybe you just like pissing off autistic math nerds? How the FUCK are you mapping the harmonic series onto its own power set? Oresme's series is just sum of inverse powers of 2 where you double, triple, etc. the number of terms depending on the power of 2 you are on. This is far from a power series. Correct me or get the fuck out of here.
Log[n] + EulerGamma < Sum[1/k, {k, 1, n}]the left-hand side clearly divergesthus so does the sum
>>16806472Agree 1/n diverges. Just disagree that Oresme's proof and Cantor's proof are compatible
>>16806464Mapping an infinite set of 1/2 onto its own power set, not the other way around.
>>16806471How is this being done? Please explain. How is the set of inverse integers equivalent to the power set of the set containing an infinite number of one halfs?
>>16806483The empty set maps to 1 and the rest is self-explanatory. It's not a map to the integers. If it were, you could disprove Cantor's theorem by the same map, which is how, IMO, the contradiction is entailed. Again, this isn't a mainstream opinion yet and you shouldn't use it as an answer to any test.
>>16806492>rest is self-explanatoryYeah that's what I thought. I knew you were just bullshitting, fuck you. You can't add up to 1/3 or 1/7 with any inverse powers of 2. And the harmonics are just integers with a -1 written in the top right so it would be equivalent to a map to the integers. You can't explain how the (inverse) integers are a power set of infinite 1/2s. Do that. Oh what's that? You fucking can't? Yeah fuck you, you fucking retard.
>>16806500Same reason you can't index every infinite bit string by a list of terminating bit strings. You never get to 1/3.
>>16806510Which is the same reason why the harmonics aren't a power set of the infinite set containing only 1/2s. Thank you for conceding this. I hope nobody else on this board falls for your pretend made up bullshit. Goodnight and fuck you.
>>16806516They aren't. The map is. Goodnight lol.
>>16806519No one disagrees with the result. It's a procedural thing.
>>16806077>we'll run out of halves lol, go home
>>16806464>given who I knownobody>and where I workyou are an useless neet
>>16805585>Why do mathematicians have this weird unhealthy obsession with proving to the world that math is "fun"Mathematicians don't care. It's pedagogy that want everything to be fun, so you lazy dumblets start to study and companies won't have to replace you with pajeets.
>>16806452>I know you just explained it, but how is Oresme's proof not valid?nta but wigibedia :DD lists it as a valid proof, seems to me like in the case of something this well known it'd be trustworthy but idk
>>16805585Shut up and do your homework.
>>16806579You don't know how to count.Also, "powers of two".
>>16806452The counting of halves is wrong as presented here. The halves grow slower than Anon believes they do. The argument is correct, but Anon's arithmetic is fucked in the wrong direction.
>>16806911>>16806919Anon has only accumulated 3 halves in his example yet he counts 8. Anon is always off by a factor of log base 2. Anon's sum grows much faster than he believes it does.Both diverge. Anon's sum diverges too fast to bound the harmonic series.
>>16806911ok, half-wit.thanks for the laughs
>>16805585didnt she upload all her shit to pornhub too bc they were paying more per view?
>>16807035>huh? wuh?And you never will.
