/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15029989
Didn't Tao show the Collatz conjecture is almost definitely true?

>>15030075
He should submit the result to the journal of almost certainly accurate mathematical statements...

>>15030075
>Tao
E-celeb only famous because he promoted Barack Obama

>>15030687
Not only that, but most of his work seems to be based on statistical and probabilistic mathematics, actually it seems like a pattern for the Asian mathematicians if you've noticed.

Not such an elegant proof.

>>15029989
You should publish this to the journal of emotional mathematics

>>15030691
larping faggot
dear lord

>>15030834
How am I larping you worthless kiddo, have you even read his paper on Collatz?

It's published in the Math.PR section, do you kids learn probability in school?

>>15030842
get a grip retard

>>15030834
Jesus Christ you are a fucking failing mathematician or an undergrad at best!
Have you even read his paper?

>>15030850
refer to
>>15030834

>>15030843
Admit that you are what a failure of a mathematician!!
You are wrong you have to admit that you are wrong like some worthless undergrad!

>>15030853
not the guy who called you a retard, but you sound like you're seriously projecting

>>15030853
YWNBAM

>>15030852
>>15030860
>>15030862
Literally none of you have read the paper, it's in the probability section wtff!!!

>>15030075
No, he showed that almost all numbers tend to have a value lower than their initial value. But this doesn't actually say much.
For example, almost all numbers are irrational, but there's also an infinite amount of rational numbers. etc

>>15030842
>>15030691
I think you probably just came across a few of his works, which happen to be about probability, and think that's all he does. It's because he does an immense amount of work in an wide variety of fields, everything from prime numbers (Green-Tao, Polymath8 to improve upon Zhang's twin prime bounds) to PDEs to harmonic analysis. I mean, you can't be derisive because he didn't solve it, but Tao gave the strongest result and only real result on the Collatz conjecture for decades.
>>15030980
It's the bounds that is important. If you actually proved that Collatz sequences always reach a value lower than the initial, you have proved it. But the difficulty of proving the bounds is as hard as the problem itself

>>15031063
I’ve tried to investigate numbers that could be the smallest number to disprove the theorem, but it just seems like an infinite task. You first test 2n + 1 then realize half of these numbers don’t work, so you try 4n + 3, then this isn’t accurate enough so you get 16n + 15, 16n + 11, 16n +7, and after testing these you get even more and so on. I made a computer program to do the work for me and of course the trend continues, constantly growing. The idea is that if we are able to continue this process, then there is no first number that disproves the conjecture, so it’s true. One problem I saw though is that when n = 0, we are dealing with the number itself, and there doesn’t seem a way to prove that it doesn’t ascend forever. So let’s say we have some (2^k)n + C, where C is the number that grows forever. We would have to constantly increase 2^k to and test the resulting number to see if it ever goes below the original. Maybe there is a way to show that this leads to a contradiction but I have no idea how.

>>15030980
He said you can pick ANY divergent series and it almost all numbers will end up lower than it. That's a pretty strong result.

>>15029989
>I feel like
Not today, mathlet--not today.
>>15030691
Yes, Asians like Tao and Yitang Zhang are mostly bounds dorks and probabilistic-number-theory dorks. It's not nothing, but who wouldn't rather be Wiles or Perelman blowing out a problem completely?
Even with Green-Tao, it's not clear how much was Green's work and how much was Tao's.

>>15031063
Yes and if you actually understood Szememeredi's theorem you would've known that it's closely related to stastics and probability.

>>15029989
Very good thread considering the rest of the shit on this board.

I care so little about muh tighter bounds that I'd be too ashamed even to arXiv that shit with my name on it. It seems like the mark of desperation for the second-rate intellect, the almost-there pleb that history forgets. I encourage everyone simply to dump their tighter bounds curiosities on the Internet without fanfare to send a message.

>>15030850
>>15030853
Why do ESLs love using the exclamation so much?

>>15031121
If Tao is a second rate intellect you're something like a fiftieth rate intellect. The hard truth is problems have become very difficult by a process of natural selection. Problems which are even very hard to solve have been solved, now only those of staggering difficulty exists. Proofs to obtain even results of great problems, even weak ones, are now very complicated. Perelman's, for example, was very complicated and poorly understood for many years after its publishing.

>>15031138
>second-rate intellect feeling inadequate
Perelman is the ideal, not Tao.

>>15031089
>almost all
.
I would say that it's almost useful. But you can't solve this problem with probability.
>>15031104
Conjectures are quite important in mathematics. If you only look for ways to prove a theorem, you might end up missing that it could simply be false and therefore it's not possible to prove it in the first place.
I'm not going to try proving or disproving the Collatz conjecture because as I said, I believe that it's not plausible to prove it (because I feel like it's false) nor disprove it except for a counterexample. This is consistent with the current result of almost 70 years of not-proving-nor-disproving the Collatz conjecture.
I've looked into the Collatz conjecture for a while now, I genuinely think it's just a waste of time.

Tao thought Hillary was qualified to be president but Trump was not. His intellectual superior Perelman would have seen at once that neither Hillary nor Trump was qualified to be president. The inferior intellect betrays itself in its informalities.