/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15943416
If it's true it means we don't understand multiplication and division as well as we think

>>15943552
How does it do that?

>ramanujan conjecture

I think the idea is that the fact that the conjecture is unproven reflects a gap in existing mathematics techniques and any development that would allow us to prove it would be useful for other mathematics as well. If there were a proof using well-established mathematics someone would have proved it already.

>>15943585
I don't know what this is or how it connects to Collatz Conjecture?

>>15943572
Implication of an underlying symmetrical argument

>>15943621
What is a symmetrical argument and what gets implied?

>>15943622
Arguments linking geometry and number theory

>>15943732
NTA but such as? You're being a dick just give name or reference to what you're referring to.

>https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf
>he Marxen-Buntrock machine effectively
>applies a certain iterative map, over and over, to a positive integer encoded on the tape. The
>map is strongly reminiscent of the infamous Collatz map
So the Collatz Conjecture has ties to the upper estimation of the busy beaver function.

>>15943741
I don't think they exist already. One side is multiplication in non collapsed state is operationally normal eg symmetrical

>>15943416
It’s not really interesting because we already know that some forms ax+b / c work and some don’t. Whether 3x+1 / 2 works or not is overly specific, like caring about the shape of an arbitrary cloud in the sky

>>15943416
https://oeis.org/A006577
You can see some pretty large graphs of things like log distributions demonstrating the chaotic growth of complexity https://oeis.org/A006577/a006577_10B.png

The general problem I have is in dealing with classes of things that would appear to be unproveable, but in a generalized way there's virtually no information or analysis on the concept of the limitations of mathematical proofs for things that are true everywhere but products of truly random patterns. You just find erroneous equivocation with undecidability, or finitely axiomatic systems and completeness, or complexity.

Really what I'm looking for in relation to proof theory is a generalized treatment of what proofs represent and what seems to me a problem of encapsulation. You can't "prove" systems with infinite complexity given some finite set of axioms as I think follows from Chaitin's incompleteness theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity#Chaitin's_incompleteness_theorem

So no matter what in an abstract sense you might say there's a certain class of problems fitting a kind of maximum entropy, or true randomness, such that infinitely many randomly incompressible strings are distributed and therefore however many axioms one produces there will exist a growing error that no finite set of error terms will account for as it approaches infinity. So more or less the same thing as with the prime number theorem.

Point is Collatz may be something like that and where we just have to be satisfied with induction. The same will of course be true, if it's of that class, with the Riemann Hypothesis. I'm just frustrated I can't find the right jargon or literature or subfield addressing this in terms of proof theory in a generalized way, and in no small part due to people generally equivocating it with "specific proofs of impossibility" or "undecidability", or Godel's works, and other "similar but NOT" concepts.

>>15943909
This is a really stupid post, since some forms of iterated mappings like anon linked >>15943748 arent simple ax+c. In all likelihood you solve the collatz conjecture you'll be able to solve the general case for any number of modulo classes.

>>15943909
>>15943992
Also these are really important because such iterated functions describe the behavior of n state turing machines (as per Parkinson's paper). The busy beaver function is literally the fastest growing function possible, the absolute limit of computability. Of course the Collatz conjecture is important.

>>15943998
*Aaronson's
Fucking phone posting.

Thank you everyone who came on my thread. I think I have a solution to the Collatz Conjecture and am trying to write it up.

The problem I am having is that I started out by using a Maid Space Program Enumerator and Evaluator (MAID PEE) which is an application of Computational Maidposting that involves counting to Computer Programs. I made it in Java (see attachment) as a Domain-Specific Language.

This caused me to see a pattern in the Computer Programs being counted and what they do and the pattern caused me to write more Java code which more directly uses the patterns and then wrote proofs involving set theory and modular arithmetic.

I am including the second Java code I made, and the proofs. I don't really feel like adding the stuff about MAID PEE to the paper, because explaining it properly would take a book and all it did was help me get seeing a pattern.

I am making a paper which I will publish at CC0 to my /Sci/ence Foundation via PDF posting. I was given an advance of two hundred anime maids to typeset it and am currently doing this with LaTeX. I am hoping that if my paper is nice that I will get more AI generated maids I can use in my projects.

>>15943416
>>15944240
There is an interesting application. Once proved there is a $15,000,000 reward from a Japanese company.

>>15944240
Sure thing, once again let us know when you have this so called solution of yours. It will surely be of more value than all of your last projects that were announced almost a year ago by now, which only ended up in messy java code a 5th grader could have written better.

Thank (You) /sci/entists for sageing this thread!

>>15944250
I looked this up and it is 120 million yen. I don't know how to operate this much money or how to operate Japanese money.

>>15944282
If you don't like maid threads, why do you go in them? You can clearly see the OP is a maid. If you find yourself upset and scrolling through a maid thread it is your own fault.

>>15944288
shut up schizo and go shit somewhere else. oh wait, that's right, you're banned from every other board except /sci/.

>>15944467
I am not currently banned from anywhere? I have threads on /g/, /sci/ and /jp/ right now. Please put on this maid outfit and contribute positively to my Science Foundation.

>>15943992
>This is a really stupid post
Not finding your niche problem "interesting" is a matter of taste, not intelligence. You sound like an asshole.
>solve the collatz conjecture you'll be able to solve the general case
We already know there's no general solution.
>>15943998
>literally the fastest growing function possible
No such thing. See for example:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38079/38079-pdf.pdf

>>15943416
it means the halting problem can be solved

>>15945047
How does it mean that?

>>15944551
Conway proved that *one* generalization of the Collatz conjecture is undecidable, but there are many ways to generalize the function. Obviously some of them will introduce undecidable statements. The busy beaver function is significant because suppose we look at the growth rate of any non singular non BB function, then the BB function will surpass the growth of that function, guaranteed.

>>15943981
Based post, similar energy to me recently explaining Solomonoff induction as it organically came up.
Most scary-named math things actually pertain to eminently generalizable, interesting dynamics that can be felt in real meat life.

>>15944551
Picrel is what I mean by the BB function being the fastest growing function. The problem isn't "niche", it's important for the field of computability.

>>15945261

>>15945149
I've a truly gargantuan compilation of crossdisciplinary notes and works on developing something interesting along these lines. Who knows maybe in the end I'll just be able to prove to myself that I'm really fucking dumb. Would be a lot easier to reconcile psychologically than "everyone missing what seems obvious to me" and a whole lot less stressful in the end. I wonder though if I'm not stupid if it'll all be worth it or I just get hit by a bus.

And so I work on proofs to distract myself from the existential nightmare that is the arbitrariness of life. Finding out I'm the crazy one would be fucking fantastic.

>>15945266
>>15945261
I think anon just isn't aware of the relevant stuff being published in computational complexity theory. Which would be fair if he wasn't acting like such a dick about it. Unless of course we're both missing something obvious but if we are I guess we'll find out.

>>15945300
What's this?

>>15945341
hint: powers of 2

And the bottom should be
4
3
2
1

not

4
2
1

>>15945349
I have no idea.

>>15945857
Ok I will tell you.

Every number can be represented as a sum of powers of 2 minus 1.

7 = 2^3 - 1 = “3 -1”
27 = 2^4 + 2^3 + 2^2 - 1
etc.

We can multiply by 3 very easily, since it’s just multiplying by 2 and adding a copy of itself.

4 -1 (15)
= 5 -2 + 4 -1 +1
= 4 -1 + 3
=4 3 -1 (23)

The shortcut is to just re-write 4 and subtract 1 from 4 to get 4 3 -1.

Ex:

6 5 3 -1 (103)
=
6 5 5 4 3 2 -1
=
6 6 4 3 2 -1
=
7 4 3 2 -1 (155)

It’s very easy to do the process algorithmically and keep the same format. Now we just need to look for patterns..

>>15945869
Why is the minus one important? I thought every number being representable as the sum of powers of two is obvious and also known for a long time because that is how binary works? How is this more useful or significant than numbers with radix 2?

I apologize if I missed something obvious. I have been drinking since I woke up.

>>15945890
because with -1 it loops

3(-1) + 1 = -2
-2/2 = -1

>>15945261
>x^2 is literally the fastest growing function possible because it grows faster than any linear function

>>15945303
>I think anon just isn't aware
Of course. It's definitely not your category error comparing functions or the fact that you're unaware of result [4] from the references of the linked survey.
>acting like such a dick
When you start a conversation by calling someone "stupid" or a "dick," you're the asshole. Not the person you insulted.

>>15944537
further prove of your main character syndrome. noone gives a shit about your void projects and schizophrenic ideas. please post on /b/ in the future I am sure your posts are more welcomed there.

>>15943416
Hey, please don't spoil it. It's white mathematican's theory even asiat's can fully understand. We must keep it unsolved as monument to white man.

>>15946033
If you are not the main character of your own life, please try to make better decisions.

>>15946038
I don't understand what this means?

>>15946100
We need some mathematican, that's white, that has some things no asians can solve, so we'll be better at mathematics than chinks.

>>15945299
I get what you're getting at, and it is similar to my frequent thought experiment that there must be quite a number of "things" (like facts about the universe) that humans would a) perceive as interesting and non-trivial, and b) where the complexity of it does not simply reduce to e.g. needing to parse large numbers; but for these "things" it would be true that humans are too stupid to understand them. You can chart that as a graph, with the "easily understandable" problems near the origin point. Human cognition determines some hard boundary at some point, which means understanding these problems (you could also add a third qualifier c) we regard these problems as "pertinent" and are or in the future will be actually trying to solve them) is forever outside the grasp of humans.

Only, you cast it in terms of axiomatic systems, rather than sapient subjects pondering a certain fact.
But I think you over-eagerly optimize away the discussions that focus on decidability. As said, I fully get what you mean, and your point is not necessarily related to computation or decidability. But the debate mostly takes places as a sub-discipline of it, so if you avoid the overall field you never encounter it. I am sure many people in it are actually aware of it. Also, it plays out in philosophy of logic and (to a lesser extent) epistemology. If you always just search for math or CS resources, you will miss out on a huge chunk of it.

Looking into arithmetic dynamics but it's probably true. Why, I just can't be bothered to show.

>>15946100
Thank you. No really, I am thankful to you. Prior to this post of mine, which you are reading right now, I was writing a response of over 1000 characters going at you. But right when I was about to finish it, I realized something crucial, something important that should have been clear from the start when you posted for the first time, years ago. You made me realize that, by constantly replying to you, I only became a part of your act that you've kept up for over a year now. I am become nothing but a fool in your play. This will change from now on. I will not participate in your threads anymore. I will stoically hide them. I will try to not visit this board and website frequently, at least not as frequently. You have made me a free man and for that, I am truly thankful. As for you, I hope that you will also come to your senses one day and refrain from these charades. I never believed you to have a real mental illness. However, this decision is for you to make and not part my trouble anymore. Farewell.

>>15946330
I have plenty of notes regarding other facets and features of complexity including decidability. It's rather eclectic all inclusive like one expects the wall-scrawling numbers of hollywood movie schizophrenics to be so don't worry about that.

However regarding "human stupidity" that's far from the limiting factor. Rather there's a proportional and inherent limit to linear solutions and translation systems of some arbitrary order and therefore inherent limits to "proofs" which are deductive in nature ("mathematical induction"). It would not matter at all how intelligent you are you simply can't represent certain results as non-contradictory consistent true/false values from a fixed number of premises.

Anyway that's the trivial fact. What I'm doing is a whole lot more complicated and I don't want to be scalped so I'm sticking to the trivial facts.

>>15944240
>I think I have a solution to the Collatz Conjecture
Another day another retarded claim from this retard. And no, you can't mooch someone to solve the conjecture for you in the same way you mooch alcohol and poorly written code

>>15946601
I don't know why you get so upset that people give me food for free and the maid tells me about counting and numbers and computers for free.

If these things upset you, you don't have to go in my threads. Attendance is not mandatory. This guy >>15946356 worked out that attendance is not mandatory and now he is free.

>>15946665
Don't let the idiots get you down it gave me some things to think about and add to the pile of notes anyway.

I don't care about the maidposting or whatever just in general /sci/ needs more threads like these sorts and less /xpol/ clutter

>>15944240
Please publish the code somewhere (you don't need copy functionality inside the pdf. It's okay to just put it in there without. Or put it on pastebin and post a link here)

Also where pdf. Gonna read the rest of this thread tomorrow or on 31st. Solving collatz would be a great start into 2024 lol. (but realistically you didn't sadly)

>>15946917
I am finishing off the PDF. I wrote different, shorter code which will go in the PDF. It is written in core Java 17 with no third party dependencies. I am trying to keep the code under one page to make it easier to copy and run. I will PDF post it to the /Sci/ence board once it completes with a new thread and my trip turned on. I also need to get a bitcoin address to put at the end of the paper, so I have to figure out how bitcoin is operated too.

I am not going to include the MAID PEE code because it is long and not really needed since all it did was help me get seeing a pattern and I don't feel like writing 50 pages to explain how it works.

>>15946943
I have read about trips having been bruteforced before. I would recommend you to setup PGP and post that instead. Then you don't need bitcoin immediately in case it turns out wrong.
You can set up pgp by typing
>gpg --full-gen-key
in a linux terminal. You retrieve your PUBLIC (!) key by typing
>gpg --armor --export ...
where ... is your fingerprint (in my case 3543384BFBD77BA242A923A68EEAA686C472213C)

Also I am >>15527428
PGP in case I need it: https://pastebin.com/Y5Xi6Axs

>>15946975
I dont understand what you want me to do with PGP? Even if my proof is wrong, there is no risk to putting the bitcoin address at the end of the paper?

I have to write two more sections in the paper, paste in my code and put in the margin maids. Probably can complete that part today, then will try to work out the bitcoin part.

>>15944240
Dr. Eli you are my favorite. Keep up the great work

>>15946665
I'm just calling you out on your constant shitposting, the only upsetting part is how suddenly extremely boring and inane /x/ schizos have taken over /sci/ with their word vomit and delusions as to dilute actual proper discourse.

>>15943416
this board will die unless we IP ban incompetent shitposters and delusional posters. Anything written by a complete retard is as off topic as posting about porn and politics on /o/. Jannies need to start permaing schizos and anyone who hasn't at least tried to work through an undergrad level textbook