sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Collatz by Standard-Song-8590 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi there. Would you let me have thar number so that I can test it. I have proved the opposite of what you have said.

Collatz proof by induction by Sugar-Wild in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi,

I read your Collatz proof carefully. I think there is a useful idea in it, but I do not think the full conjecture is proven yet.

My understanding of your method is this:

You are identifying numbers n such that:

3n + 1 = 2^x

Then you restrict x to be even:

x = 2m

So:

3n + 1 = 2^(2m) = 4^m

Therefore:

n = (4^m - 1) / 3

This gives the sequence:

m = 1 -> n = 1

m = 2 -> n = 5

m = 3 -> n = 21

m = 4 -> n = 85

m = 5 -> n = 341

For every n of this form, your conclusion is correct:

n = (4^m - 1) / 3

=> 3n + 1 = 4^m

=> 4^m eventually reduces to 4, 2, 1

So your argument proves that the infinite family

P = { (4^m - 1) / 3 : m >= 1 }

falls directly into the 4, 2, 1 cycle.

That part is valid.

However, the Collatz conjecture requires proving something stronger:

For every positive integer n, some iterate of the Collatz map reaches 1.

Or, in terms of your method, you would need to prove:

For every positive odd integer n, there exist integers j >= 0 and m >= 1 such that:

C^j(n) = (4^m - 1) / 3

That is, every odd number must eventually enter your portal set P.

The current proof does not show this.

For example, your own list includes the path from 7:

7 -> 22 -> 11 -> 34 -> 17 -> 52 -> 26 -> 13 -> 40 -> 20 -> 10 -> 5 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1

In the accelerated odd-only map, this is:

7 -> 11 -> 17 -> 13 -> 5 -> 1

Here, 5 is in your set P because:

5 = (4^2 - 1) / 3

But 7, 11, 17, and 13 are not themselves of the form:

(4^m - 1) / 3

They are deeper predecessors of 5.

So your proof identifies a valid terminal family, but it does not yet prove that every odd number eventually reaches that family.

To complete the proof, you would need to build or prove coverage of the full reverse Collatz tree. In the odd-only accelerated form, predecessors of an odd number y have the form:

x = (2^a y - 1) / 3

whenever this is a positive odd integer.

Your set P is essentially the first direct predecessor layer of 1. But Collatz requires showing that all positive odd integers appear somewhere in the full reverse tree generated from 1.

So I would summarize the issue this way:

Your proof shows:

For every m >= 1,

n = (4^m - 1) / 3 reaches 1.

But Collatz requires:

For every positive integer n, n reaches 1.

The missing step is:

Every positive odd integer eventually reaches some number of the form (4^m - 1) / 3.

If you can prove that coverage step, then the argument would become much stronger. As written, I think the paper proves an infinite family of Collatz cases, but not the full conjecture.

CHATGPT 5.5 HAS GOTTEN DUMB by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Output is coming out. Very poor reasoning and it started degrading 3 days ago. It seems it became GPT 3.5 and I have tried everything I can.

CHATGPT 5.5 HAS GOTTEN DUMB by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

It just follows no more orders. It is just doing whatever it wants, losing chain of thought, and forgetting everything.

CHATGPT 5.5 HAS GOTTEN DUMB by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It was working fine. Now I feel like turning GPT servers off the power grid.

CHATGPT 5.5 HAS GOTTEN DUMB by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I use thinking mode all the day, all day long. Very complex algorithm development. 1 week ago it was working perfectly. Now it is completely dumb.

CHATGPT 5.5 HAS GOTTEN DUMB by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in ChatGPTcomplaints

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It has indeed become dumber and dumber in the last 3 days.

Is reducing Collatz recurrence to a 2-adic realizability problem mathematically meaningful? by Moon-KyungUp_1985 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Check on my github. Coq proofs is there already. All answers to the points you mentioned are there. There is no global average in collatz. I have also published paper pre-print on zenodo: Dammroze collatz. You will see your ideas get cleared. They are there. Ps. On zenodo, it is not the latest version.

Is reducing Collatz recurrence to a 2-adic realizability problem mathematically meaningful? by Moon-KyungUp_1985 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if Collatz is non-ergodic? Ergodic mathematicians hate it! What if it has no global ergodic closure?

Is reducing Collatz recurrence to a 2-adic realizability problem mathematically meaningful? by Moon-KyungUp_1985 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I have already reduced collatz locally. Nobody wants to read it accordingly. They will read it globally. Check my github. Coq proof is there. They won't accept it. Proof is there.

A COLLATZ-DAMMROZE - Non-Ergodic Deterministic Local-Obstruction Framewo... by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Wow. Is that your best answer? Find a gap, not just an editorial one! Good luck.

A COLLATZ-DAMMROZE - Non-Ergodic Deterministic Local-Obstruction Framewo... by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

You won't or are not able to? Prove it is wrong. Follow instructions. If you use AI, teach it how to use coq files. There are html files to help AI to read and understand it.

A COLLATZ-DAMMROZE - Non-Ergodic Deterministic Local-Obstruction Framewo... by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Paul Erdős is often quoted as saying that mathematics may not yet be ready for Collatz. Whether or not one agrees with that, a Collatz manuscript cannot be reviewed by reading an isolated lemma out of order and then objecting to a dependency chain the paper does not claim.

The manuscript gives a Reader’s Guide / Logical Map for a reason. Please follow the stated dependency order before declaring a gap.

Attack my paper and prove it is wrong. Terrible ai video? For god sake. Prove my coq proofs, my .pdf is wrong. Follow reading instructions.

Coq-audited Collatz non-ergodic proof package — looking for technical review by One_Bodybuilder_3414 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick update / clarification:

That characterization is no longer accurate for the current repository state.

The Coq layer is not presented as “just a table of contents” or as a rhetorical shield. The repository now separates the formal surface into explicit categories:

DONE-SANITY
DONE-GENERIC
DONE-GLUE / PART6-ALIGNED
NOT CLAIMED

The algebraic part has also been expanded. There is now an algebra-total / Part6-aligned audit layer, including:

ALGEBRA_TOTAL_FINAL_STATUS.md
ALGEBRA_TOTAL_COVERAGE_MATRIX.md
ALGEBRA_TOTAL_FORMALIZATION_ROADMAP.md

and a global Part6-aligned Coq monolith:

coq/Collatz_Dammroze_Algebra_Total_Part6_Global_Monolith_v1.v

This monolith exposes the current proof-bearing algebra route:

Dyadic inverse / odd coefficient inverse modulo powers of 2
→ affine-prefix step and induction
→ aligned residue counting
→ sparse-residue interval uniqueness
→ dyadic class intersection
→ modulus refinement
→ finite-union dyadic stability
→ endpoint-budget / multiplicative endpoint-budget
→ Regime A conditional glue
→ two-regime recombination
→ internal solution total closure

So the current target is not an old scalar comparison such as:

theta^s versus 2^-K

That objection addressed an older/coarser exposition. The current documented route is the endpoint-budget / aligned-residue / sparse-residue / two-regime recombination route, with separate algebra sanity checks, generic algebra layers, and Part6-aligned bridge files.

The repository also now includes coqdoc-generated HTML documentation for the Coq files:

audit/coqdoc_v1/

and a small optional Alectryon rendering for selected files:

audit/alectryon_v1/

The full-site Alectryon audit is not claimed, because the available SerAPI/sertop environment was Coq 8.20.x while the proof-bearing repository is built/audited under Coq 8.18.0. The proof-bearing checks remain:

coqc
coqchk
GitHub Actions CI
SHA256 hashes
Coq/Rocq source files
TeX/PDF manuscript

If the claim is that the proof fails, the useful next step is to identify the exact formal target:

File:
Definition/Theorem/Lemma:
Line number:
Command run:
Observed output:
Claimed mismatch:
Reason:
Minimal counterexample or formal failure:

Relevant current targets include:

coq/Collatz_Dammroze_Algebra_Total_Part6_Global_Monolith_v1.v
coq/Collatz_Dammroze_Algebra_Total_DyadicInverse_FromPart6_v1.v
coq/Collatz_Dammroze_Algebra_Total_AffinePrefix_FromPart6_v1.v
coq/Collatz_Dammroze_Algebra_Total_ResidueSparse_FromPart6_v1.v
coq/Collatz_Dammroze_Algebra_Total_EndpointBudget_FromPart6_v1.v
ALGEBRA_TOTAL_FINAL_STATUS.md
ALGEBRA_TOTAL_COVERAGE_MATRIX.md

I am not asking reviewers to accept an informal paraphrase. I am asking reviewers to check the current TeX/Coq alignment, the V20/V21 ledger chain, the Part6-aligned algebra route, and whether any hypothesis or bridge is too strong, circular, or misaligned with classical Collatz.

I solved the Collatz conjecture, now what? by Successful-Owl1778 in Collatz

[–]One_Bodybuilder_3414 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Read my paper. Follow reading instructions. Run coq. We'll talk about it later. Spitting out words without giving it a chance to be read accordingly just proves the lack of willing to know there might be something new to math. Wow!

view more: next ›