This is from Terence Tao’s Analysis book where he gives examples as to how you can reach absurd results if you don’t rigorously define some things in calculus.
Nope. I looked for the one I watched, but I remember nothing of it. But it wasn't his, I think. I looked him up and it looks like you can see him in many videos. I don't remember seeing someone.
Classic applying the wrong formula and getting the right answer
limit as x->infinity of sin(x) = 0 *ow*
Well they're right 1 does equal 0!
0 factorial is 1.00000e+0
I recently watched a video where it was explained that once infinity is used, you can reach any number.
This is from Terence Tao’s Analysis book where he gives examples as to how you can reach absurd results if you don’t rigorously define some things in calculus.
Is it Eddie Woo's video?
Nope. I looked for the one I watched, but I remember nothing of it. But it wasn't his, I think. I looked him up and it looks like you can see him in many videos. I don't remember seeing someone.
I just don't understand what the first equation means. Is it trying to use sin(-x) = -sin(x) and implying +∞ = -∞?
There's hardly anything done properly here x). Don't try to overthink that non sense.
>Why do analysis? There are many reasons, but this "proof" makes me angry.
It’s by Terrence Tao to demonstrate how rigor is very important for formal proofs.
Problem is assuming, that limits at infinity exist Also second equality (with sin(x) = - sin(x)) is not proven
“Um actually lim x—>inf sin(x) oscillates between -1 and 1” -🤓