Re: collatz proof algorithm reveals e


ronaldo wrote:
> mensanator wrote:
> >So your conclusions are a measure of your algorithm
> >and not Collatz. This, of course, makes your conclusions
> >although not wrong, worthless, i.e., of no value to anyone.
> I have thought about this but do not agree.
> An algorithm specifies a process for doing something,
> and counting the steps af any proof algorithm is the
> only acceptable way of defining any notion of a proof length.

For one particular algorithm.

> How else?

By using a different algorithm.

> And the worth of this? I do not know whether your main
> interest is in maths

Yes, what matters is the Collatz conjecture itself.

> or computer programming

I'm interested in that also, but not at the expense of the other.

> but you
> should realise that any algorithm that finds upper or
> lower bounds or limits related to the collatz trajectories
> is one step more towards a proof of the conjecture.

If they are legitimate limits, yes. But when these limits miscount
the proof length, they are steps away from a proof, not towards it.

> Even proving me wrong will be a step forward, but you do
> not do that, you only counter-jecture me.

I think I did prove you wrong when I showed that sum(z)=count(p).
It doesn't matter whether the limit you found is e or pi or anything
else, your algorithm is simply wrong.

> OK. This is a free world.

So don't give people the impression that you've "discovered"
something new. Present your work in it's proper context.

>
> Quote:
> Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely
> with notions of "what is".
> Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely
> with notions of "how to".
> -from the preface to SICP

The trouble is, you've created a framework for "how to" deal
with "what isn't".

.

Relevant Pages