Possible proof

log in |

Message boards : Science : Possible proof

Author | Message |
---|---|

"The Collatz conjecture was proposed by Lothar Collatz in 1937. It is also known as the "3n + 1 problem" because of its deceptively-simple definition. | |

ID: 12446 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

Well, its not been verified yet, thats `our` job so keep on crunching :¬) This has been verified for numbers up to 5.76 x 10^18 (nearly 6 billion billion), but without a proper mathematical proof there is always the possibility that an incredibly large number could violate Collatz's rule. | |

ID: 12447 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

I wonder if Herr Opfer happens to mention (or is aware of) this project. The higher and higher we step, the more likely it is there will be a number so large it somehow breaks the pattern, at which point one could look at the construction of the number and possibly derive a pattern by which one could prove the conjecture false. Of course the converse is more likely at this point, given we are in a ridiculously high range right now. | |

ID: 12450 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

Well, its not been verified yet, thats `our` job so keep on crunching :¬) Why do you say that this demonstration is not valid? edit: just found someone else claiming the proof is incomplete | |

ID: 12454 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

More debunking here. | |

ID: 12455 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

Well, its not been verified yet, thats `our` job so keep on crunching :¬) If the collatz conjecture would be true, we would never proof it with brute-force. The other case would be possible for "small" numbers. Doesn't forget that this project is for developing for cuda programms for the boinc infrastructure. The developer choose a simply programmable problem for their programm to extend their knowledge in this area. There are a lot of gpu project, which are helpfull for mankind, like Folding@Home, GPU-Grid. See http://www.rechenkraft.net/wiki/index.php?title=Projekt%C3%BCbersicht/en | |

ID: 12458 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

So, has anyone stopped to consider that, with infinite numbers fueling the algorithm, the algorithm has no choice but to reach 1 at some point? Even if you flipped a coin an infinite number of times, the percentage of heads vs. tails would most likely reach 1% of one or the other eventually. Bearing that in mind, it becomes quantum mathematics because it can not be proven true or false due to infinite possibilities and variables. We assume that anything that can happen will happen in an infinite environment. | |

ID: 13586 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

We work with what we have got, | |

ID: 13588 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

So, has anyone stopped to consider that, with infinite numbers fueling the algorithm, the algorithm has no choice but to reach 1 at some point? Even if you flipped a coin an infinite number of times, the percentage of heads vs. tails would most likely reach 1% of one or the other eventually. Bearing that in mind, it becomes quantum mathematics because it can not be proven true or false due to infinite possibilities and variables. We assume that anything that can happen will happen in an infinite environment. Being 'logical' has never been accepted as Scientific Proof, in the early ages the World was flat and you would fall off of it if you sailed too far, the 'proof' was all the ships that never came back, therefore it was 'logical'. After a few people said BS and went out and came back with stuff nobody had ever seen or even heard of before it was 'proven' to be round. There was MUCH more to it than that OF COURSE, but you get the idea. | |

ID: 13591 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

So the question is, how do we prove something true or false when there are infinite numbers to test? In this way, the flat world was "good enough." Are we taking that approach to this algorithm as well? | |

ID: 13699 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

Look, here's the simple proof. | |

ID: 13704 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

Look, here's the simple proof. Maybe you should email Dr. Opfer. | |

ID: 13706 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

So the question is, how do we prove something true or false when there are infinite numbers to test? In this way, the flat world was "good enough." Are we taking that approach to this algorithm as well? Proving it true would require checking numbers to infinity. However, proving it false requires finding only one number that becomes a loop that repeats every N cycles. | |

ID: 13724 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

The Polya conjecture was true until 906,150,257, Mertens conjecture still has no known counter proof value, but it is known that there is some massive number that does disproove it, Skewes number is not proven but lies between 1.53x10^1,165 and 1.65×10^1,165. | |

ID: 13818 · Rating: 0 · rate:
/ Reply
Quote
| |

Post to thread

Message boards :
Science :
Possible proof

Copyright © 2018 Jon Sonntag; All rights reserved.