Talk:A Disappearing Number

Has attracted my attention too

I wonder what was intended by this statement:

"Ramanujan first attracted Hardy’s attention by proving that the sum $\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n=1+2+3+\cdots$ would equal $-{\frac {1}{12}}$. Hardy realised that this confusing presentation was an application of the Riemann zeta function ζ(s) with s = − 1."

Color me confused, as well -- because the formula seems to say that if you sum all of the integers from one to infinity, you approach a negative number. Not only that, but the sum cumulates to about -8.3%.

Hmm. Is Hardy alone in finding this "presentation... confusing"? Since the math is nonsense, I assume either (a) the nonsense element is a literary device in the play (which I haven't had the pleasure of seeing), or (b) there is an error in the notation of the above statement. I just don't know what was meant by it.

If (a), then the entry should include an explanation -- which I can't provide unless and until I see the play (which I'd love to -- reminds me a bit of Stoppard's "Arcadia" from the description). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salon Essahj (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The "sum" may have an expression missing:

$1+2+3+\cdots =-{\frac {1}{12}}\ (\Re )$

There is no error in it. There are various methods of assigning values to divergent series, of which 1+2+3+... is an example. (Look up 1+1+1+..=-1/2) Of course you shouldn't be satisfied until you learn about the zeta function, abel summation etc. "Ramanujan summation" is there to indicate the means whereby the value was obtained, but you could view it as a regular sum of numbers rather than a distinct operation : —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.106.16 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation (which I don't understand) at Ramanujan summation. I don't have the confidence to change the article text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)