Skip to content
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • Moments Moments Moments, current page.

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
arthur_affect's profile
Arthur Chu
Arthur Chu
Arthur Chu
Verified account
@arthur_affect

Tweets

Arthur ChuVerified account

@arthur_affect

Mad genius, comedian, actor, and freelance voiceover artist broadcasting from the distant shores of Lake Erie (he/him)

Broadview Heights, Ohio
arthur-chu.com
Joined August 2009

Tweets

  • © 2021 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

      Arthur Chu Retweeted Tom

      This is a fun one, because of course the kneejerk rejection of the statement "1+2+3+4+5+... = -1/12" is correct Under everyday, ordinary grade-school arithmetic, the answer can't be "-1/12" -- but the answer can't be any other number either, the operation itself is not possiblehttps://twitter.com/tomgabion/status/1289857027381002241 …

      Arthur Chu added,

      Tom @tomgabion
      Replying to @Nymphomachy
      Just do not tell them that in some circumstances the sum of all whole natural numbers is -1/12
      6 replies 9 retweets 76 likes
      Show this thread
      Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

      You cannot do anything an infinite number of times The answer to "1+2+3+4+5+... = x" is that x can't be anything because you will never actually finish adding up numbers and you will never get an answer "Infinite" is another way of saying "nonexistent"

      2:32 AM - 7 Aug 2020
      • 1 Retweet
      • 34 Likes
      • Lambda Duck Natalie Victor Von Doomscroll bIm unfortunate🔰🏴 (he/him) Ilosia #BlackLivesMatter Nilla Napier Sara Rodda "Spiritually brandishing a knife" Prime
      4 replies 1 retweet 34 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          You can't say x="infinity" or ∞ because in ordinary arithmetic that's not a number, it's a meaningless word

          2 replies 0 retweets 20 likes
          Show this thread
        3. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          The *rules of arithmetic* say this -- numbers are *defined* by the fact that if you add 1 or subtract 1 from a number, you get a different number, if "∞" breaks this rule, it's not a number at all and you can't use it

          4 replies 0 retweets 23 likes
          Show this thread
        4. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          So people's intuitions about this are correct but they don't take it far enough Caught between the dueling intuitions between "Well the answer to this question can't be any ordinary number" and "It must HAVE an answer though"

          1 reply 1 retweet 19 likes
          Show this thread
        5. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          All new forms of math are built on that second part "Okay, I get that this is a stupid-ass question and Pythagoras or whoever would've just said 'shut the fuck up' if I asked him but WHAT IF you COULD add up numbers an infinite number of times"

          1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes
          Show this thread
        6. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          All summations of infinite series are based on making up new rules and saying "Okay let's pretend you can do this, what happens if you do, what new stuff do you discover if we just fuck around and act like this makes sense"

          1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes
          Show this thread
        7. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          So like, let's be clear This classic series: 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... Is, from a pure old-school POV, just as bad as the other one Even though this one looks like it has an answer (it adds up to 2 in the end)

          5 replies 0 retweets 21 likes
          Show this thread
        8. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          *You can't do things infinite times* If we imagine the addition as a real-world activity that takes time to do -- a second to write the new sum on a piece of paper, a fraction of a microsecond for a processor to encode it in memory -- then the Sun will go out before you get 2

          1 reply 0 retweets 19 likes
          Show this thread
        9. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          Ancient Greek philosophers knew about this shit This is, famously, Zeno's paradox Getting around this and saying "Well let's just pretend you CAN do it infinite times" is not *answering* Zeno, it's just telling him to shut the fuck up

          1 reply 1 retweet 27 likes
          Show this thread
        10. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          Specifically, saying Zeno was wrong, and I *can* just wave a magic wand and say "skip to the end of something I just said was by definition endless", is formally inventing the idea of a "limit" Which has made many people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move

          6 replies 4 retweets 49 likes
          Show this thread
        11. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          The fact that being able to say "1+1/2+1/4+1/8...=2" is very useful, and all of calculus is based on it, doesn't actually mean we were *right* Whether "infinite converging series" are, like, a real thing that exists in the world of atoms is this big heavy question (probably not)

          3 replies 1 retweet 22 likes
          Show this thread
        12. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          There's a famously sexist quote apocryphally attributed to Shaw that I'll paraphrase as "If you wouldn't sell out for $10, but you will sell out for $10 million, then you are a sellout and you're just haggling over the price"

          1 reply 0 retweets 27 likes
          Show this thread
        13. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          When you agreed you could just shrug off the paradoxical-ness of doing anything an infinite number of times because pretending like you can is useful, you left the original rules of arithmetic behind Now we're just arguing over how weird we want to get

          1 reply 2 retweets 22 likes
          Show this thread
        14. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          This is, in fact, a *whole field of mathematics*, and the summation of infinite series can be done according to any number of different methods, which mathematicians invent at their pleasure, designed according to different criteria

          1 reply 1 retweet 20 likes
          Show this thread
        15. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          (I'm verging into stuff I only half-remember here, full disclosure) 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+... is one of the easiest series to just up and say has a solution, that it's 2 Because you're only adding, not subtracting, so you can move around all those numbers at will

          3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes
          Show this thread
        16. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          This is called "absolute convergence" If the numbers change sign, you have "conditional convergence" Paradoxically, for people used to doing things a finite number of times, it suddenly matters how the numbers are arranged

          2 replies 0 retweets 15 likes
          Show this thread
        17. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          1-2+3-4, if I stop at 4, is always going to give the same result (-2) even if it's -2+3+1-4 or -4-2+1+3 (commutative property of addition) This doesn't work with infinite sums (which doing things an infinite number of times is a filthy lie)

          2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes
          Show this thread
        18. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          The classic example is the alternating harmonic series, 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5..., which converges on the number ln(2) If you rearrange the numbers differently, so it's positive+negative+negative and not positive+negative+positive, 1-1/2-1/4+1/3-1/6-1/8+1/5-1/10-1/12... it's ln(2)/2

          1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes
          Show this thread
        19. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          Without writing out the proof, you see what kind of dirty trick I'm pulling here, right? For each positive fraction with an odd denominator, I'm "borrowing" an "extra" negative fraction with an even denominator from "the future"

          1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
          Show this thread
        20. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          (Dug up a more in-depth discussion here http://larryriddle.agnesscott.org/series/rearrang.pdf …) If this were a finite set of numbers, then I would eventually run out of "future numbers" to borrow from, and this trick to make the sum constantly be lower wouldn't work, and the sums would come out the same

          1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes
          Show this thread
        21. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          But it's an *infinite* series, so I *never* run out And so the same set of numbers rearranged converges to 1/2 the original sum This is why doing things an infinite number of times is, again, a filthy lie

          1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes
          Show this thread
        22. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          (Riemann proved you can rearrange this series to converge on ANY sum, at all, or to not converge and instead spit out ∞ or -∞ Which is one of those things mathematicians do that really pisses people off)

          2 replies 1 retweet 22 likes
          Show this thread
        23. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          Anyway There are series that are absolutely convergent, and series that are conditionally convergent, and series that are divergent The series 1-1+1-1+1... doesn't converge, it doesn't "get closer" to anything the longer you do it, it just flips from 1 to 0

          1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes
          Show this thread
        24. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          So does 1-1+1-1+1... equal anything at all? According to the method people used when they started talking about this ("classical summation"), no, absolutely not There is no way to rearrange this series so it converges on anything, it's a divergent series

          1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes
          Show this thread
        25. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          A Norwegian guy named Abel (a deeply weird, extremely smart dude who invented all kinds of new math before he died of TB at the age of 26) was like "Sure you can, it's 1/2" You probably looked at that and said "Yeah it's 1/2", if you thought about it at all

          1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes
          Show this thread
        26. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          The thing is in math you are *completely allowed* to say "Okay the rules say you can't do it but it looks like it should be 1/2 so I'm gonna say it is" You just have to go on to explain to everybody what that *implies* if you decide to do it, which is the hard part

          1 reply 2 retweets 18 likes
          Show this thread
        27. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          I.e. by the delta-epsilon definition of a limit, which is "It has to get closer to the number every time you do the next thing", 1-1+1-1 by definition is not approaching any limit You do it once, it's 1, you do it again, it's 0, then 1, then 0

          1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes
          Show this thread
        28. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          The "distance" between each new sum and the answer 1/2 is exactly the same every time, you *never* get closer A so-called Abelian summation method involves using the idea of *averaging* instead of the idea of *limits*

          1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes
          Show this thread
        29. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          Does that make sense? Should that be allowed? The authorities haven't come to a moral conclusion on the matter, but hey it's fun and cool prizes come out when you do

          2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes
          Show this thread
        30. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          (Philosophically, taking an average of an infinite number of sums is worse than adding numbers together an infinite number of times, because it means you have to "divide by infinity", and that's a big can of worms Which Abel happily opened)

          1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes
          Show this thread
        31. Arthur Chu‏Verified account @arthur_affect 7 Aug 2020

          It goes on from there Every new bleeding-edge summation method has more scary problems with it -- or, rather, it lacks certain properties that were assumed under classical summation Abelian summation does not "work" in many ways, but we accept that

          1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes
          Show this thread
        32. Show replies

      Loading seems to be taking a while.

      Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2021 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Cookies
        • Ads info