Re: Collatz Conjecture proved.

From	wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Collatz Conjecture proved.
Date	2026-01-26 23:51 +0800
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<3198f8ff46a9ed1d1c107849375c1b3276e44a5a.camel@gmail.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <10l44rd$u7or$1@dont-email.me> <975e829c29ff11e83681aa87e347c7ef1ffe43dc.camel@gmail.com> <10l5g5u$1pdvi$1@dont-email.me> <9dca223cfefd1e3e79492484e04d9ca343637fa2.camel@gmail.com> <10l6c9o$1b3n6$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 2026-01-26 at 01:25 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> (I probably regret answering to your post.)
> 
> On 2026-01-25 18:20, wij wrote:
> > 
> > You need to prove 4/33 exactly equal to 0.1212..., not approximation.
> 
> Is that all you want proven; a specific example?
> 
> This appears to be as trivial as the more general approach that James
> gave and that you (for reasons beyond me) don't accept (or don't see).
> 
> First
>      __
>    0.12   or   0.1212...
> 
> are just finite representations of real numbers; conventions. And 4/33
> is an expression representing an operation, the division. You can just
> do that computation (as you've certainly learned at school decades ago)
> in individual steps, continuing each step with the remainder
> 
>    4/33 = 0     => 0
>    40/33 = 1    => 0.1
>    remainder 7
>    70/33 = 2    => 0.12
>    remainder 4
>    40/33 = 1    and at this point you see that the _operations_ *repeat*
> 
> so the calculated decimals (1 and 2) will also repeat. And sensibly we
> need a finite representation (see above) to express that.
> 
>    Albert Einstein (for example) said: „Die Definition von Wahnsinn ist,
>    immer wieder das Gleiche zu tun und andere Ergebnisse zu erwarten“.
> 
> Are you expecting the sequence of decimals differing at some point?
> 
> If not you see that the number represented by the convention "0.1212..."
> equals to the number calculated or expressed by "4/33".
> 
> Janis
Not quite sure what you mean.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/RealNumber2-en.txt/download
         3. 1/3 = 0.333... + non-zero-remainder (True identity. How to deny?)

How would you deny it, and call the cut-off 'equation' identity?
You cut off non-zero-remainder to stop repeating, so yes, you see the part you
want to see, i.e. the front part without "...", and forgot the definition
"infinitely repeat" is invalidated.
Let n(i) be the repeating number 0.999... The range [n(i),1] remains 1-1
correspondence to [0,1] in each step, nothing changed except scale. Or you
suggests every zooming of the small area of Mandelbrot set will be 'empty' or
uniform or 'stop' for some mysterious reason.

I assume you disagee my point in the previous post that every denial must
refute Prop 1= Repeating N+N infinitely does not yield natural number.
       Prop 2= Repeating Q+Q infinitely does not yield rational number.
               (precisely, positive rational number)

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