Re: Collatz conjecture
From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 06/11/04
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: New Way to Factor"
- Previous message: Larry Hammick: "Re: Four-Color-Theorem"
- In reply to: Alexander T. Hamming: "Re: Collatz conjecture"
- Next in thread: Alexander T. Hamming: "Re: Collatz conjecture"
- Reply: Alexander T. Hamming: "Re: Collatz conjecture"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Jun 2004 17:48:18 +0200
ath77@aol.com (Alexander T. Hamming) writes:
> See http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0312309
> I checked it and believe it.
The author tries to "show that any proof of the Collatz 3n+1
Conjecture must have an infinite number of lines". His argument is of
course incorrect, and it's a good example of its kind. I have in mind
arguments with a startling conclusion which an ordinary mathematical
reader will immediately recognize as suspect because they don't use
any particulars of the problem they deal with. Consider Theorem 3: the
argument is that to show that there exists an m such that T_(m)(n)=1,
we need to perform at least m_0 computations, where m_0 is the
smallest m such that T_(m)(n)=1, "since the value of T_(m_0)(n) is
determined in showing that there exists an m in N such that
T_(m)(n)=1". What would you say about an argument to the effect that
to show that there exists an m>10^100 such that m is a prime, we must
at least perform the work needed to show that m_0 is a prime, where
m_0 is the smallest prime > 10^100, since "the (boolean) value of 'm_0
is a prime' is determined in showing that there exists an m>10^100
such that m is a prime"?
- Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: New Way to Factor"
- Previous message: Larry Hammick: "Re: Four-Color-Theorem"
- In reply to: Alexander T. Hamming: "Re: Collatz conjecture"
- Next in thread: Alexander T. Hamming: "Re: Collatz conjecture"
- Reply: Alexander T. Hamming: "Re: Collatz conjecture"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|