Re: Collatz Conjecture proved.

From	wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Collatz Conjecture proved.
Date	2026-01-25 23:44 +0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<f047468aa0f75cbe922a6983f569cb9c62003cb7.camel@gmail.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <10l4je5$1g17r$1@dont-email.me> <4fb8cac1443da0f3a286f8ca66c78da742967428.camel@gmail.com> <10l4ob8$1h8s1$1@dont-email.me> <13bc9f7330b8cb1b79f205b6a14514264584e6e8.camel@gmail.com> <10l4vtf$1jjam$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 2026-01-25 at 12:47 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> On 25/01/2026 12:06, wij wrote:
> > On Sun, 2026-01-25 at 10:38 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> > > On 25/01/2026 09:46, wij wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I agree such repeating decimal is rational or not things may be off-topic,
> > but who brought it up?
> 
> /You/ brought it up - in your references for your off-topic post.  I 
> can't say why James picked that particular part to focus on - perhaps it 
> is because it was clear what you had written, and obviously totally 
> false and a complete misunderstanding of rational numbers, limits, and 
> decimal representations, as well as demonstrating that you don't 
> understand how mathematics works.  It is much harder to criticise the 
> Collatz Conjecture stuff, because what you have written is gobbledegook. 
>   Perhaps it made some sense in your original language (I may be wrong, 
> but I think it is Chinese), but has been mangled beyond recognition by 
> machine translation.
> 
> > Please stick to the topic. There are many C/C++ stuff in my post, why you
> > people always choose to pick non-topic to post???
> > You know the truth in subconscious?
> > 
> 
> The Collatz conjecture is totally off-topic here.  Writing a function 
> for it in C does not make it on-topic.

Do posters have to write a C function for sales of tissue paper to be 
on-topic? It is because you believe you know C (but shallow).

> Now, if you want to talk purely about a C implementation of the Collatz 
> function, perhaps looking at ways to handle it efficiently for large 
> numbers, that might be an interesting and on-topic here.

Why did I often heard you guys arguing about wild 'philosophy' of C 
language (hardly C related) all day long. You are not the king.

> If you really had proof of the Collatz conjecture, especially one this 
> short, it would be sensational - Abel prize or Fields medal level stuff. 
>   We should be hearing about it in the mainstream news.  It is an 
> example of a problem that is easy to explain, but extraordinarily 
> difficult to proof.  You should be talking about it in mathematics 
> arenas, not a C newsgroup - and I strongly recommend you do so in a 
> group in your native language.

Sounds to confirm what I thought: All is simply because you are not there
but 'believe' you are. You like to mimic the TV-professional style excuse.

You cannot evaluate the simple proof of Collatz problem (even in short C/C++). 
But choose to wait to be told to believe and think you understand.
The same as "N+N=N infinitely is false", you cannot see it yourself but wait 
to be told, and think you understand the basic.

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