Re: Collatz Conjecture proved.

From	wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Collatz Conjecture proved.
Date	2026-01-25 18:55 +0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<72f4d3262c35490df9f726058b4301f85a7a47d4.camel@gmail.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <10l44rd$u7or$1@dont-email.me> <975e829c29ff11e83681aa87e347c7ef1ffe43dc.camel@gmail.com> <10l4je5$1g17r$1@dont-email.me> <4fb8cac1443da0f3a286f8ca66c78da742967428.camel@gmail.com> <10l4ob8$1h8s1$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 2026-01-25 at 10:38 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> On 25/01/2026 09:46, wij wrote:
> > On Sun, 2026-01-25 at 08:15 +0000, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 13:28:31 +0800, wij wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, 2026-01-24 at 23:06 -0500, James Kuyper wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > This generalizes to work with any recurring decimal. When the
> > > > > recurrence is n digits long (in the above example, n=2), just
> > > > > multiply by 10^n.
> > > > 
> > > > Such arithmetic is called approximation ...
> > > 
> > > No, it’s exact.
> > 
> > Prove it. No one wants blind belief.
> > 
> > > I think your problem is you are trying to think about maths using a
> > > specific low-level programming language (C or C++) which only supports
> > > finite-precision integers.
> > 
> > Your problem is just repeating what you are told to repeat, no meaning.
> > 
> 
> 
> It's a long time since I did proofs of the properties and arithmetic of 
> rational numbers, but I certainly did them at university.  I also 
> derived the real numbers from Peano axioms.  It is not "blind belief", 
> it is easily within the capabilities of maths undergraduates.  I am not 
> going to go through such a derivation of rational numbers and decimal 
> expansions here - if you don't accept the simple, clear proof given by 
> James, a long one working directly from the ZF axioms is going to be far 
> over your head, and a lot of effort for no gain.  I am confident, 
> however, that both James and Lawrence could also do such proofs themselves.
> 
> What you seem to be doing is inventing your own "axioms" (without any 
> justification, or proof of either consistency or necessity), inventing 
> your own definitions for well-established mathematical objects (like the 
> rational numbers) without any proofs, derivations, or explanations, and 
> then making wild claims that aren't even justified within your own system.
> 
> It's a complete mess, and there is little point in anyone trying to pull 
> it apart to help correct your errors.  As the meme goes, it's not even 
> wrong.  You have a lot of work ahead of you to "unlearn" the 
> misconceptions that drive you here, before you can begin to learn some 
> mathematics.
> 
> And it is totally off-topic for C and C++.  The last thing these groups 
> need is another Olcott.  You also post sometimes on C and C++ - please 
> stick to those topics in this group.
> 
>

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-12-24 20:05 +0800
  Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 00:37 +0800
    Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-25 00:23 +0000
    Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-24 23:06 -0500
      Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:28 +0800
        Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-25 08:15 +0000
          Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 16:46 +0800
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-25 10:38 +0100
              Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 18:55 +0800
              Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 19:06 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-25 12:47 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 23:44 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-25 12:22 -0500
            [OT] Proofs.  Was: Collatz Conjecture proved. Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-25 11:33 +0000
              Re: [OT] Proofs.  Was: Collatz Conjecture proved. richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-01-25 13:11 +0000
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-25 18:52 +0000
              Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 03:58 +0800
        Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-25 11:25 -0500
          Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 01:20 +0800
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-26 01:25 +0100
              Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-26 23:51 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 00:07 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-26 21:05 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-26 21:07 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 04:34 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-27 09:21 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-27 16:31 +0000
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-27 18:24 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-01-28 15:17 +0000
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-27 18:44 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-27 22:52 +0000
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-28 08:29 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-28 10:27 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 12:59 -0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-01-30 06:33 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 11:59 -0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 04:08 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:11 -0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-28 17:34 +0000
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-01-28 18:23 +0000
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-01-29 08:39 +0100
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:02 -0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2026-01-26 21:18 -0500
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 04:01 +0800
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 08:29 +0800
        Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 19:46 -0800
          Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 12:34 +0800
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 04:16 -0800
          Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:04 -0800
    Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-29 16:50 +0000
      Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 05:40 +0800
        Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-30 02:20 +0000
          Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 11:03 +0800
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2026-01-30 04:22 +0000
            Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-29 20:38 -0800
              Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-31 05:30 +0800
                Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 14:16 +0800
          Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2026-01-30 11:52 +0800
  Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Jan van den Broek <fortytwo@xs4all.nl> - 2026-01-31 14:11 +0100
    Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 03:58 -0800
      Re: Collatz Conjecture proved. Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2026-02-03 21:27 +0000

csiph-web