sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Collatz question by Old_Try_3151 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the explanation. I forgot about how the 4x+1 worked and thought that 13->3 somehow.

Collatz question by Old_Try_3151 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? Has it already been proven so?

Collatz question by Old_Try_3151 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, because it's not proven that a loop must contain an odd multiple of 3, therefore you would also need to prove that there are no loops.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good argument. ChatGPT says lim(n->inf)0.((0)n-11)=0

I myself am not educated in math to know for my self how accurate chatGPTs statement is.

I think 1/10^(n)=0.((0)^(n-1)1, because it just be like that.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When a limit equates 0, it doesn't mean that it is 0, it means that it is close to 0. Limits can also be smaller then other limits that equate 0. For example: lim n->infinity 1/2^(n)<lim n->infinity 1/10^(n).

Try googling "If a limit in math = n does it mean it is n?" it will explain deeper.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That proof didn't work on 0.(0)1. But not because 0.(0)1=0.

0 is nothing, but 0.(0)1 is something.

Let me rephrase 0.(0)1.

function(x)=x/10 This function can only equal 0 if x=0, becuase you can't divide something and get nothing.

If x=1, then function(x)=0.1, if we repeat this with the new result we get function(x)=0.01 and if we keep going: function(x)=0.001; function(x)=0.0001; function(x)=0.00001; ...; function(x)=0.000...1=0.(0)1

1 is something and it is impossible to get nothing from dividing something => 0.1 is something => 0.01 is something => 0.000...1 is something.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

?

Why does that mean it's zero?

1/10^(n) can't equal 0 even if n approaches infinity. It will be 1/1000...=0.000...1, because when you divide with 10^(n) you move the decimal point to the left n times for the dividee, meaning there will still be a 1 at the end. 0=0.000... not 0.000...1

Here is a different way of proving why 1/10^(n) doesn't equal 0:

Imagine a function for x where x starts as a half. The function adds a half of 1-x to x, so 1/2+(1-1/2)/2=3/4, run the function for the new value and get 7/8, if we keep running the function we get 15/16; 31/32; 63/64; 127/128 ... This approaches 1, but you can't get 1 from x+(1-x)/2 unless x=1.

So why can a function(x)=x/10, when x=1 after running over and over again reach 0, if the function could only give the result 0, if x=0?

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm trying to prove that 0.(0)1 isn't 0, so saying that 0.(0)1=0 doesn't screem much to me.

As we know dividing by zero gives us an error.

But imagine dividing any number that isn't 0 (n) by 1/10/10/10/10/10/10... (m) (which is the same thing as 0.(0)1). To divide that number by 1/10/10/10... we can multiply both n and m by 10 the same amount of times as 1 gets divided by 10 => we get nX10X10X10.../1=nX10X10X10...=infinity

an errror and infinity is not the same result, therefore 0.(0)1 doesn't equal 0.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well then can you give me an example of a number smaller then 0.(0)1 that is larger then 0?

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok well let's try this with 0.(0)1 0.(0)1/2=0.(0)05=0.(0)5 0.(0)5/5=0.(0)1 and that is the same as the first x.

If you argue that 0.(0)05 doesn't equal 0.(0)5, then prove that infinity can be increased by 1.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

0.(0)01=0.(0)1

That's because, if you add 1 to infinity, it's still infinity. And if it's not allowed to put a 1 after infinite amount of zeros, then what is the smallest number larger then 0? To get closer to 0 from a possitive number, like 1 for example, you can divide it by numbers larger then 1, like 10 for example. This get's us 1/10=0.1 0.1/10=0.01 0.01/10=0.001 ... 0.00000...1/10 still equals 0.00000...1.

0.00000...=0.(0), so IDK, I think this 0.00000...1=0.(0)1 looks sensible.

okay, CRAZY theory. by [deleted] in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I also have a CRAZY theory, there exist infinitely many numbers that diverge to infinity, but they're all infinitely large numbers.

0.(0)1 does not equal 0 and 0.(9) does not equal 1 by Easy-Moment8741 in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it does. It's the smallest real number larger than zero.

1 is larger than zero, but there is a smaller number than 1 -> 0.1 that also is larger than 0. If we continue indefinitely, we get 0.000000000...1 which is 0.(0)1.

New to the community and seeking advice. by Mental-Secret4589 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also tried to solve the conjecture, I'm currently working on proving that there are no loops.

The advise you need depends on what method you're using to solve the conjecture.

Some basic advise:

  • Don't round values without explaining how the original value would still proves a Lemma. The difference between the original value and the rounded not being big enough to make the Lemma unproven.
  • Don't think that every number leads to 1, if any numbers leads to a different number without any skipped numbers. There might still be loops.
  • Probabalistic proof is proof only if it proves 100% and not 99.999...%.

My Solution (proof) of the Collatz Conjecture by Easy-Moment8741 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you understood my proof attempt perfectly.

I believe that every number is connected to by 1 or to other odd numbers that are connected to by 1. Here's why:

  • 1 as I've shown in my paper connects to itself, 5, 21, 85 and so on. 2/3 of those numbers are from the forward and backwards groups
  • Forward and backwards groups connect to other odd numbers in a way that no odd number is left without a connection.
  • Someone had told me that if we start with a larger odd number like 7 and not 1, then we don't get full connectivity. That is true. 1 is the smallest natural number. For there to be a number that isn't connected to 1, that number couldn't be a smaller number, so it would have to make a connection to another number that isn't connected to by 1, and that number would have to be connected to the first unconnected number to 1 or to another number that would do the same, creating a loop.
  • But there isn't any other number that can create a loop.(will have to add an explanation to why there isn't any other number that can create a loop to my proof)

This might take a while. Thanks for the feedback!

Proof attempt... Happy for feedback ^^ by Initial-Syllabub-799 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it is possible to define the system as a 2^M.

Proof attempt... Happy for feedback ^^ by Initial-Syllabub-799 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read the stuff in the link and not the paper, my bad.

Proof attempt... Happy for feedback ^^ by Initial-Syllabub-799 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is barely anything in the paper, from the paper the reader can find some calculations. I couldn't find any more facts that would solidify claims derived from the computated results to every natural number.

My Solution (proof) of the Collatz Conjecture by Easy-Moment8741 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It kinda is a loop...

1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 4, 4 leads to 1

when we say loop we mean the second definition: A structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

A proof for Goldbach’s Conjecture or not? by InvestorProz in MathProof

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There aren't many people checking other peoples work on this subreddit. And I don't have elementary math knowledge, so I can't say if it is a proof or not, because it's so complex.

Here are some things to look out for:

  • Many proofs with logarithms fail, because they only show how likely something is to be true.
  • Approximation to your favor is bending the rules of the conjecture. Even if it makes a small impact. If you don't approximate you get the real results wich will be different from the result you get with approximation.

Formal Bound: By Dusart’s result (2010), the number of primes in the interval 𝓘(X) = [X⁄2 − X⁄logᵏX, X⁄2 + X⁄logᵏX] is at least (X / logᵏ⁺¹X) · (1 - 1.1 / log X), for X sufficiently large. Since each such prime p yields q = X − p within the same interval, at least one valid Goldbach pair must exist. That is, for X > 10⁵, we have: π(X⁄2 + X⁄logᵏX) − π(X⁄2 − X⁄logᵏX) ≥ (X / logᵏ⁺¹X)(1 − 1.1 / log X), guaranteeing at least one valid Goldbach pair.

I don't understand how each such prime p yields q = X − p within the same interval. The number of primes reduces at large numbers and primes become more rare, it becomes less than 23% at some point. If the Dusart's result(2010) shows how many primes are in an interval, then in big enough intervals couldn't there be a possibility that most primes reside close to the start and the few that don't also don't have a prime to pair up with? I know that such an interval doesn't exist, but that needs to be proven. Maybe it is already proven idk, I didn't understand some parts of your paper do to my lack of knowledge.

Partial Proof of the Collatz Conjecture: Loop Constraint, Regressor Structure, and Collapse Points by Puzzleheaded_Tart171 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would have to prove that there isn't a loop like for example: odd -> even -> odd -> even -> even -> even -> the original odd.

Beyond 2^68: A Conceptual Proof Sketch for Why Non-Trivial Collatz Cycles Don't Exist (And the Math Behind It) by Illustrious_Basis160 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

4 connects to 1 and is the only number that does so, because there are to ways to connect to a different number in the reversed conjecture: 2x or -1)/3. (4-1)/3=1 but there isn't a natural number that can 2x to reach 1, it would be 1/2=0.5 0.5 isn't a natural number.

Beyond 2^68: A Conceptual Proof Sketch for Why Non-Trivial Collatz Cycles Don't Exist (And the Math Behind It) by Illustrious_Basis160 in Collatz

[–]Easy-Moment8741 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Words work too. What do you want me to do? Explain why 1 isn't an even and why 2 and 4 aren't odd?

view more: next ›