How is it clearly false?
New result
Christopher Nguyen
Jacob Young
Stand aside, this little proof's gonna make me rich and famous.
Ryder Cook
If it did make me rich and famous, that would be really great. However, that's not what I'm complaining about. I'm complaining that it doesn't earn me enough to buy a meal or rent a room.
Jason Perry
So the result is only relevant in the irrelevant little world that the author imagined for himself and the title is pure clickbait. Got it.
More like, a paper that extends R in just the right way to produce some wacky "unintuitive" results in order to make the author feel like he's done something interesting.
Also, 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12. Prove me wrong :^)
Parker Brown
Math tends to degenerate into mental gymnastics very quickly as you ascend the complexity curve. Do note however that it's still technically correct and is perfectly valid. Shit like doubling a sphere. You can't produce two separated spheres that simultaneously use all points of the original sphere, obviously a fraction of these went into each of the new spheres. But with the uncountably infinite real numbers and ill-defined mess that is "metric", you do actually get two identical spheres. Or however many as you want actually.
Jace Johnson
Logan Sanchez
Both of these point are wrong and stupid. Someone else extended R that way like 100 years ago. The extended real line isn't something I invented. Furthermore, whoever invented extended R did so precisely to get rid of your stupid "infinity isn't a number" claim. So please, acknowledge that I am not the inventor of the extended real line, and that you argument fails in the extended reals as much as it does in the little world I invented.
If I can paraphrase your argument, you're saying, "Analytic continuation isn't allowed," but it is allowed. If you think it isn't allowed then that you means you don't know shit and are probably retarded.
I have not ascended the complexity curve very high here. All I really do is say, "Consider the analytic continuation of R in stead of R itself," and that is a very low-complexity proposition.
Julian Garcia
Okay. 17+12 = 13
Noah Garcia
So you are saying that e^-∞ = 1 and not 0?
Because your results implies that it equals 1.
Tyler Bennett
I don't see that. Please explain how my result regarding the complex exponential gives the result you wrote.
there's not even a smidge of math anywhere in the universe that didn't get made up in someone's head.