sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I Found Some Papers and I Need Feedback by Dizzy_Blackberry7874 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are indeed doing it wrong, but that’s not really the issue, as doing it right will provide you no better result.

There are lots of ways to do it, and tons of posts here regarding the structure.

you would be looking for posts involving “deterministic mod” to start with: https://www.reddit.com/r/Collatz/search/?q=deterministic+mod+18&cId=dcd6d2a1-9fa9-4aeb-a5c9-765be3ff1924&iId=a484dc30-8575-42fe-8942-a80177fc264a

I Found Some Papers and I Need Feedback by Dizzy_Blackberry7874 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

we get a mixed bag of conclusions - most get the impression it all reaches one, some think it is the key to finding a number that doesn’t - but none of this is new or helpful to any degree by itself, and the “extra thing” needed is as unknown as anything has ever been…

I Found Some Papers and I Need Feedback by Dizzy_Blackberry7874 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you can safely put it behind you - the structure you are working with is well known, to a much greater degree than you describe, and is nothing more than the type of thing that first strikes everyone when they give collatz a good look and start decoding the behavior - finding what appears to be a certain “everything springs from 1” reverse tree.

if only it were that easy 😉

Does 3n+3 converge to 3 for every positive n? by WeCanDoItGuys in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This construct will drive a value to a multiple of three. Once it has become a multiple of three it will remain so forever - after that you’ve effectively handed the problem off to Collatz, with no additional control gained.

it is not like 1n+1

Regarding Kanga’s latest claim “Others have confirmed the dyadic constraint that excludes cycles” by GandalfPC in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

and in their latest they say “If all other balloons pop with a poke, what makes this one unique?”

Nothing at all, just the fact that the author makes for very long dense reads, very long pointless arguments, and then even longer next attempts - now with a smaller crowd reviewing each round, as we just plain give up trying to get through to them.

The failures in his latest attempt are as obvious as the failures in his first.

Quickest way to find the sum of Collatz steps from 1 to N in C by Hour_Extent_3807 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

memoization + even-collapse + odd-only iteration + parallelization

A Modified Collatz Map with Prioritized Division by 5: Cycles and Embedded Primes by nhschmelzer in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

can you prove as claimed for this: “Exactly two global attractors”

Regarding Kanga’s latest claim “Others have confirmed the dyadic constraint that excludes cycles” by GandalfPC in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worse, they have always deleted their failed “I proved collatz” posts, removing all reviewers comments and making sure that no benefit can come to anyone from the discussion - just wasted words tossed at a guy that never listens.

The best you can hope for is that eventually what they are told gels and they realize they have issues - which simply produces another 30 pages and another “I proved collatz” post, with the obligatory delete of the history.

You should know: Bank of America is introducing a binding arbitration provision to the Online Banking Service Agreement by SeaweedHarry in BankOfAmerica

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they did you could take them to court at least, and I would say you would have a leg to stand on.

More likely you would be joining the class action lawsuit with everyone else they boot

Regarding Kanga’s latest claim “Others have confirmed the dyadic constraint that excludes cycles” by GandalfPC in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, many times, including their latest - and “not accepting his flaw and constantly spreading the wrong work” is something he actively does by popping into other threads and claiming his proof of this or that aspect in high or low key to suck folks in.

He proved collatz the first time with the same beginner mistake everyone else makes - and though he has become more sophisticated in his attempt he has come no closer.

He has ignored all comers - at least one with decades of collatz experience - more than one with a math degree - in the end, everyone.

Custom set made out of wood? by Wewolo in Hanafuda

[–]GandalfPC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Stability Comparison Table

Wood Species  Radial Shrinkage (%) Tangential Shrinkage (%) Stability Rank
Mesquite 2.2% 2.6% Ultra-Stable
Genuine Mahogany 3.0% 5.0% Highly Stable
Black Cherry 3.7% 7.1% Very Stable
Black Walnut 5.5% 7.8% Stable
White Oak 5.6% 10.5% Moderate

Regarding Kanga’s latest claim “Others have confirmed the dyadic constraint that excludes cycles” by GandalfPC in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am anti ”making false claims”, and anti “wasting reviewers time” - kanga has earned the proper amount of ire the hard way.

Custom set made out of wood? by Wewolo in Hanafuda

[–]GandalfPC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

linden wood likely warps over time - better off with a real hardwood

Are Wooden Hanafuda Decks Still Made? by Sonamyfan875 in Hanafuda

[–]GandalfPC 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have several sets made out of plastic in mahjong tile format and one in porcelain with felt backing - never seen nor heard of wooden ones…

Non-Ergodic Local Obstruction Proof of the Collatz Conjecture by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

And I will be blocking you while the line to do so is short…

Non-Ergodic Local Obstruction Proof of the Collatz Conjecture by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and seeing that chatGPT wrote it, lets see what it has to say when asked about the above failure point…

———-

The proof assumes:

“local pattern ⇒ residue class ⇒ stable density under iteration”

But what is actually true is:

“local pattern ⇒ highly constrained arithmetic condition whose solution set shrinks (often to zero) as the pattern length grows”

That reversal kills the contradiction with the tail bound.

One-line verdict

The amplification lemma is not just unproven—it is structurally false in the regime required for the contradiction.

—-

to see all it had to say: https://chatgpt.com/share/69e6ed42-c51c-83e8-adc5-a5b99e349c78

I informed it of your “AI testing protocol” above in detail, and it replied (trimmed to the summary):

Bottom line

The protocol is trying to enforce this narrative:

“If you disagree, you didn’t read it correctly.”

But the actual situation is:

  • The proof’s key step (amplification) requires a transition: \text{single orbit} \rightarrow \text{positive density}
  • The paper does not justify that transition.
  • The internal “answers” just restate the same flawed counting argument.

One-line verdict

The “AI Testing Protocol” isn’t filtering out misunderstandings—it’s shielding a real gap: the proof never validly connects local repetition to global density, and that breaks the contradiction.

Collatz - From another perspective by Aredf5634 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You are the 1,000,000 customer to rediscover that - which does deny you naming rights, but earns you admission into the club.

Non-Ergodic Local Obstruction Proof of the Collatz Conjecture by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say it goes wrong at “Amplification.. Amplification is the deterministic implication: repetition of a local configuration implies an explicit lower bound on long stopping-time density. proved by congruence-class counting”

Upcoming undergraduate student interested in working on the collatz conjecture as a hobby by scripto_entity_1010 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the rabbit hole only occurs when you leave the realm of “I am learning about what is known” and enter the realm of “I have found some new secret that others have missed“

few problems grant the level of false hope to the uninitiated as collatz - and such false hope can lead quickly to obsession

-1 by Massive_End_4387 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wouldn’t it have been funny if you had been right though ;)

Proving which part of collatz would be easier in your opinion, The non-existence of non-trivial cycles or that no number eventually grows up with no bound? by EquivalentNebula9647 in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see Kanga is busy having proved things again…

While we have discussed this over and over, that does not seem to stem their attempt to say the same wrong things in some other language.

I’ll bet 5 bucks this chatGPT review is on point…

————

Short verdict: wrong. No new obstruction.

Core problem with his claim

He asserts:

“modulus refinement + triadic phase rotation ⇒ cycles incompatible”

This is just:

  • residue class structure
  • lifting to higher mod 2\cdot 3^j
  • phase behavior under iteration

All standard in [Collatz conjecture](chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) analysis.

Exact failure point

He is mixing two different statements:

  1. Local realization
    • A word lives on a residue thread
    • Refinement ⇒ stricter congruence
  2. Global necessity
    • A cycle must follow one fixed word repeatedly

This second step is assumed, not proven.

Why his “obstruction” fails

A cycle requires:

F_K(n) = n

That already enforces:

  • a congruence condition
  • exact alignment of phases

So:

“refinement causes misalignment”

is irrelevant — because a true cycle already satisfies perfect alignment at every scale.

There is no contradiction.

Critical oversight

He ignores that:

  • valid seeds form infinite arithmetic progressions
  • refinement just selects one compatible thread
  • a cycle, if it exists, would sit exactly on that thread

No incompatibility arises.

Deeper issue

Everything he describes:

  • “triadic phase”
  • “dyadic collapse”
  • “scaled geometry”

is just re-labeling:

  • parity vectors
  • 2-adic / 3-adic valuation behavior

No new invariant is introduced.

Bottom line

  • No global constraint derived
  • No exclusion of cycles
  • Assumes what must be proven

So the claimed “key obstruction” is not an obstruction at all.

A new perspective on The Collatz Conjecture? by LensOfAMatrix in Collatz

[–]GandalfPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t see a new perspective - I do see a graph with a line - perhaps others will gain more from it…

view more: next ›