Found an argument for no cycles in the Collatz Conjecture that uses only elementary mathematics
in [Math]
|
Prev: Chapt21: meaning and purpose of life Re: Exoplanets in Tight 2:1 Resonance #253 & 4.37 Atom Totality & Correcting Math
Next: Fermat's Last Theorem
From: G. A. Edgar on 1 Aug 2010 13:52 In article <d4a2841a-e995-4f8b-b0db-ed6f3cd501aa(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Larry <larry.freeman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I didn't see any replies to my argument and I saw that only 9 folks > viewed the proof from the url. > No response in 12 hours, overnight on a weekend? Horrors! Time was, a mathematician would send in his paper to a journal, then start to complain if he heard nothing after 12 months... I guess times have changed. -- G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/
From: Larry on 1 Aug 2010 15:22 On Aug 1, 10:52 am, "G. A. Edgar" <ed...(a)math.ohio-state.edu.invalid> wrote: > In article > <d4a2841a-e995-4f8b-b0db-ed6f3cd50...(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Larry <larry.free...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I didn't see any replies to my argument and I saw that only 9 folks > > viewed the proof from the url. > > No response in 12 hours, overnight on a weekend? Horrors! > Time was, a mathematician would send in his paper to a journal, then > start to complain if he heard nothing after 12 months... > I guess times have changed. > > -- > G. A. Edgar http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~edgar/ Hi G. A. Edgar, Sorry if it sounded like I was complaining. My concern was that after a day or two, no one would be able to find my forum post since there weren't any responses. But I agree with you, getting any feedback even within 1 week is very quick. Thanks very much for your response. -Larry
From: Gerry Myerson on 1 Aug 2010 19:41 In article <d4a2841a-e995-4f8b-b0db-ed6f3cd501aa(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Larry <larry.freeman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't see any replies to my argument and I saw that only 9 folks > viewed the proof from the url. > > It seems to me that there are three ways to view this: > > (1) It was Saturday. Do I really expect people to read a post such > as this on a Saturday > > (2) The math.sci forum is no longer responding to posts such as this. > > (3) Unclear Proof. The parts that are clear are obvious and the rest > is unclear and requires too much effort to figure out if it works or > doesn't work. (4) People are tired of doing your work for you. > If anyone would like to let me know their response to the proof (see > the original post for the link). I would really appreciate it. In > the past, I have twice presented arguments to this thread and within > 1-2 hours, there was some solid refutation. The other argument was > soundly disproven within 6 hours. Finding mistakes in your work is your job. You should count yourself lucky that you got away with it those other times. > If someone could take a little bit of time, quickly review my argument > (especially Definition 1, Definition 2, and Theorem 16 at the end), > and let me know their impression of the proof, that would be really > great. Some of us have better things to do with our time than to spend it on serial blunderers. -- Gerry Myerson (gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Larry on 1 Aug 2010 20:42 Hi Gerry, Thanks for your honesty. I did spend about 24 hours going over it but perhaps that is not enough. I apologize if you feel like I am asking you do the work for me. I run a math blog and people are often asking me for help. As I have time, I try to help when I can but I agree with you, it does get frustrating if I feel someone is asking me to do their homework for them. I appreciate the feedback. -Larry On Aug 1, 4:41 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > In article > <d4a2841a-e995-4f8b-b0db-ed6f3cd50...(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Larry <larry.free...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I didn't see any replies to my argument and I saw that only 9 folks > > viewed the proof from the url. > > > It seems to me that there are three ways to view this: > > > (1) It was Saturday. Do I really expect people to read a post such > > as this on a Saturday > > > (2) The math.sci forum is no longer responding to posts such as this.. > > > (3) Unclear Proof. The parts that are clear are obvious and the rest > > is unclear and requires too much effort to figure out if it works or > > doesn't work. > > (4) People are tired of doing your work for you. > > > If anyone would like to let me know their response to the proof (see > > the original post for the link). I would really appreciate it. In > > the past, I have twice presented arguments to this thread and within > > 1-2 hours, there was some solid refutation. The other argument was > > soundly disproven within 6 hours. > > Finding mistakes in your work is your job. You should count yourself > lucky that you got away with it those other times. > > > If someone could take a little bit of time, quickly review my argument > > (especially Definition 1, Definition 2, and Theorem 16 at the end), > > and let me know their impression of the proof, that would be really > > great. > > Some of us have better things to do with our time than > to spend it on serial blunderers. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
From: Larry on 1 Aug 2010 20:59
> > More likely: > > 4. Your prior posts have shown you to be a crank and noone competent > wants to waste their time. Hi Pubkeybreaker, Thanks for your honesty. It may very well be as you say. Still, I hope that is not the case. Here are the posts that I have done in the past: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=jFG73xcAAAASoB14SYLCgTwu9ufCSuRyHqZiDvCVswhrZ6TQxKj0ww I believe that my current argument has holes but I am not yet able to find them. Thanks very much for your response, -Larry |