Perry Bible Fellowship

I stumbled upon your other dialogue here while browsing the thread. I'm honestly not certain whether or not you're just trolling, but in case you're being serious... a word of genuine advice from someone who has gone into a field that has a lot to do with mathematics:

You seem like you're an undergrad student, potentially from the UK, potentially majoring in mathematics or a mathematics adjacent field. You do seem passionate about it, I can give you that. But seriously, friend, the way you handle discourse, debate & dialectic, and reasoning are all massively ill-equipped to actually handle working in this field. If you don't change you will fail in your career. This isn't meant to be mean, it is a legitimate and fair warning. I've met a lot of people just like you over the course of my own career, and they don't last very long if at all.

Separate ego from argumentation. Engage evidence on its own terms. Recognize that complex results sometimes defy intuition. Value clarity and logic over signalling status. The responses you are getting here are really light compared to what actual supervisors and peers are going to throw at you out there. You utterly failed to sway or convince anyone because you refused to even try. The problem is patently you here. I suppose I'm trying to tell you here and now, when it's just an irrelevant internet forum, versus later when your dreams and economic security get crushed because you can't maintain a research position. If you just continue on how you are, you're going to alienate all your peers. Nobody wants to work with someone who's more concerned with personally being right than finding the truth. That's what you've done here, in all the comments of yours I have read. For example, if you were actually concerned with the truth you would've outlined your reasoning for why the proof regarding the limit of -1/12 is incorrect. You didn't even begin outlining or clarifying the problem space. What is it that you find objectionable here? Because I don't necessarily disagree with you, that limit does imply nonsensical results in a broad context. That's not the context it is posited in, however. -1/12 is pretty famously derived from the Riemann Zeta Function evaluated at -1. If you'd engaged with the other guy's source in good faith, you'd understand that he was approaching the problem in that space. You'd then be able to formulate a counterthesis that appropriately addresses the argument at hand instead of strawmanning and posturing. You didn't do that though. Why? Because you were more concerned with being personally correct than finding out the truth. So your discourse stalled and you convinced nobody of anything at all! We're not here to debate, we're here to engage in dialectic.

Final word of advice - drop the ad hominem attacks, glaring assumptions, and refusal to engage with sources based on tenuous reasons. Those are going to prevent you from breaking into the career in the first place. Don't attack people, attack arguments and lines of reasoning. Attacking someone personally doesn't do anything but undermine your own credit.