That proof (and the more general statement) is not correct because it makes assumptions about infinite summation of divergent series that are not true. There i

That proof (and the more general statement) is not correct because it makes assumptions about infinite summation of divergent series that are not true. There is a link between the sum of natural numbers -- namely, the analytic continuation of the Reimann Zeta function has Z(-1) = -1/12. But the Zeta function is only defined to equal the sum of inverse powers for Re(z) > 1. And under a specific definition of summation (Ramanujan summation) you can say that "the sum is equal to -1/12" but that isn't the same as normal summation. Mathologer did a fairly in-depth video[1] into why this proof is wrong and what the actual link is between the infinite series and -1/12. The upshot is that even if you use more complicated definitions of summation, you cannot define sums of the kind 1+2+3+... to equal a finite number. If you assume the infinite sum of 1+2+3+... converges to a finite number you can easily prove a contradictory statement using the same summation properties assumed by that proof. Namely: S = 1 + 2 + 3 + ... = -1/12 S2 = S-S = 0 = 1 + 2 + 3 + ... - 1 - 2 - 3 - ... = 0 = 1 + 2 + 3 + ... - 1 - 2 - ... = 0 S2 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = 0 S3 = S2-S2 = 0 = (1-1) + (1-1) + ... = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ... = 0 But we "derived" in the original proof that S3 is equal to 1/2, which is a contradiction. (You could derive S3 is 1/2 from S but that's what the article does in reverse.) [1]: https://youtu.be/YuIIjLr6vUA https://youtu.be/YuIIjLr6vUA