Re: Collatz conjecture

From: Torkel Franzen (torkel_at_sm.luth.se)
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: 13 Jun 2004 21:37:23 +0200

ath77@aol.com (Alexander T. Hamming) writes:

> He quoted theorem 2 and it showed that
> m computations were required to determine T^m(n), so it takes m
> computations to prove that there exists an m such that T^m(n)=1.

  This "so" is a non sequitur. If you don't realize this by now, I
very much doubt that there is anything I could say to bring the point
home to you.

Quantcast