Manishearth
Reputation
490
Top tag
Next privilege 500 Rep.
Access review queues
 Oct 24 comment Why can't you square both sides of an equation? @celtschk Ah, I see. Right. Oct 24 comment Why can't you square both sides of an equation? @celtschk How does that contradict what I said? Sep 22 awarded Nice Question Jun 18 awarded Nice Question Apr 1 awarded Notable Question Mar 28 comment Sum of all integers No. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem. The -1/12 thing is just a sensationalistic thing that crops up every now and then which is always taken out of context of zeta-renormalized math/physics. Feb 26 awarded Yearling Feb 14 awarded Notable Question Dec 9 awarded Caucus Sep 30 awarded Explainer Jul 2 awarded Curious Feb 20 comment Smallest next real number after an integer Basically, your post here was dismissed due to the connection with real numbers. They aren't real numbers. And just a representation has no meaning until you add some extra juice to it. Feb 20 comment Smallest next real number after an integer @user124384 Because the number system there isn't fully defined. It's not the real numbers, in the first place. There are a number of artificial number systems that that representation can accept, it's more of a seed of an idea than a fully fleshed out idea. Some are well ordered, some are not. I managed to get a well-ordered number system out of it here by giving a meaning to the less than/greater than signs. But whatever it is, it's not the real numbers. Feb 20 comment Smallest next real number after an integer You might enjoy the kaufman decimals Nov 16 comment Why can't you square both sides of an equation? The issue here is distinct from the one in the question, here the square root symbol (which is a function that denotes the positive square root) is being misused in the problem. Squaring both sides of a consistent equation will only make you gain solutions, not lose them. Nov 15 suggested rejected edit on Problem in Hamiltonian system Nov 7 answered Smallest integer $x$ s.t. $x! \equiv 0 \pmod {216}$ Nov 4 revised Can we construct Sturm Liouville problems from an orthogonal basis of functions? added 722 characters in body Nov 4 comment Can we construct Sturm Liouville problems from an orthogonal basis of functions? @DavidH Hahaha as a physics student myself, usually I'm certain of these things too, but mathematicians don't seem to like such happy-go-lucky certainty. I was looking for caveats to the general "reverse Sturm Liouville problem". Nov 4 revised Can we construct Sturm Liouville problems from an orthogonal basis of functions? added 6 characters in body; edited title