Re: sum R
- From: amy666 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:32:32 EDT
david once again misunderstood.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:58:48 EDT, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
david wrote :internet.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:59:45 EDT, amy666
<tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
taking the sum over the reals in a real interval.
i would like to read more about it on the
range
in general for the interval (0,1) with bounded
(-1,1) the sum over the reals converges if the
integral over (0,1) is 0.
Nonsense. Would you like to show us the proof of
this, or should we
start with a counterexample?
it does not always hold.
Right. So when you said "in general..." you were
speaking
nonsense.
depends on the amount of non-differentiable points.
if f(x) is smooth it does and both = 0.
Oh my god. Yes, this is true, because the sum of an
arbitrary
collection of 0's is 0.
it is also true without only summing zero's.
who said the sum is restricted to zero's ?
only you did.
are you going to argue again that 0 + 0 + 0 + ... is also a series and i forgot to mention i wasnt looking for it ?
old ullrich tricks again.
You're really so proud of realizing that the sum of
0's is 0
that you needed to post this?
im am not proud.
and btw the sum is not restricted to zeros.
what the integral does is say what the average isfor the subset of measure 1.
the
i denote "[sum R f(x)]0_1 "
understanding gibbs phenomenon is sufficient for
interval (0,1) for an f(x) with f(x) a fourriersum over the reals of a fourrier series.
Huh? What does that mean, exactly?
basicly that the sum over all the reals in the
series is not hard to compute.
Jesus. That sum for a fourier series does not exist,
except when the
series is identically zero. This has nothing to do
with Gibbs.
bogus david.
once agian you are wrong.
such sums do exist.
for instance already a simply sine function has such a sum over its period 2 pi.
since the positive and negative terms annihilate eachother.
x - x = 0 see ?
no need to restrict the sum or fourrier series to zeros alone !
so jesus , david , that sum does exist indeed.
and jesus david , you are wrong.
example,
what is intresting is the analytic computation ofthe sums over the reals if convergeant.
Huh? If it exists, the sum over the reals of a
function is a _number_,
not a function. You really think that, for
isanalytic
continuation of 0 or analytic continuation of 42
"interesting"?
COMPUTATION not CONTINUATION.
Yes, I misread what you wrote, sorry.
you ALWAYS misread what i wrote.
thats always your excuse.
that is , the rare times you do excuse yourself of course.
indeed you are wrong.
and still are.
you are confusing those 2.numbers.
simpler said , giving a closed form for those
Why in the world do you think this is "interesting"?
because its calculus.
why in the world do you think aleph_37 is intresting ?
First, you haven't given any examples where the sum
converges, _except_ in the case where f(t) = 0 for
all t.
+ x - x = 0
+2 -2 +1 - 1 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0 too
the sum is not restricted to zero's !
sine(x) over its period will give 0 too.
jezus.
And second, of course there _are_ cases where the sum
converges. But that happens only when f vanishes
except
at countably many points, and in that case what you
have
is just an ordinary sum.
no david , wrong again.
cantors function !
it shows there are uncountable sets on the reals with measure 0.
thus the points are not restricted to countably many points.
i cant believe of all people that i , have to point out to you the cantor function !!!
lol.
There's no difference
whatever
between calculating your amazing sum_R things and
calculating the sum of an arbitrary series.
yep and there is no difference between calculating a random integral and an arbitrary integral.
however there is a different between defined integrals and arbitrary integrals or series.
and thus also between math operators , like my sum_R is ,
and you babbling about unimportant arbitrary series with an undefined cardinality of terms.
in much the same way we solve definite integrals.case
like gamma(1/2) = sqrt(pi) and similar.
and also if a summability method is possible in
internet.of divergeance.
i would like to read more about it on the
to
does anyone know a good website for it ?
You should set up your own. Then you wouldn't have
them.worry about
whether you were making any sense - you could just
post your
marvelous insights and then come back and read
same as continuation for people like you :)
and maybe i should add that computation is not the
Yup. Before or after you point out that your
fascinating point of view
shows that 0 + 0 + ... = 0.
david still doesnt understand
jesus.
heres a big chock for you david :
-1 + 1 - 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ... is also = 0.
and the sum over the reals in the period of sine(x) is also = 0
second chock , im talking about an uncountable amount of terms summed.
so yes , there is a VERY BIG difference with ordinary sums like 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ...
regards
tommy1729
David C. Ullrich
regards
tommy1729
David C. Ullrich
you seem to have misread me once again hmm
tommy1729
.
- References:
- Re: sum R
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: sum R
- Prev by Date: China wholesale cheap Air force 1s Jordan 3 4 5 12 23 fusion shoes cheap LV Shoes cheap gucci shoes etc
- Next by Date: Re: sum R
- Previous by thread: Re: sum R
- Next by thread: Re: sum R
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
