Re: collatz proof algorithm reveals e

I wrote:
>This dump shows tour "flash of insight" is correct. But note that when
>proceeding from n to n+1 the prover is called with arguments
>among others) n+1 and collatz(n+1). I do this to maintain the loop
>invariants of the algorithm so although this call to collatz may seem
>superfluous I count this as 1 not 0.
I meant "your " flash of insight of course. Otherwise, bad wording.
I count recursive applications of the prover, not of collatz.
Checking wether I've seen a number before also constitutes
a proof step.

.