What's the point of mathematicians?

[Anonymous No.15074342]

Like, seriously, how can they not solve something as simple as the Collatz Conjecture? It's just if even divide by 2 and if odd multiply by 3 and add 1. If they can't solve something as simple as that then what are they even doing?

[Anonymous No.15074346]

>>15074342

[Anonymous No.15074348]

>>15074346
I think I've seen this before and it's still funny

[Anonymous No.15074453]

>>15074342
Computer scientists already solved it

[Anonymous No.15074454]

>>15074453
Well, whats the answer?

[Anonymous No.15074455]

>>15074454
All numbers go to 1. Simple.

[Anonymous No.15074479]

>>15074455
prove it

[Anonymous No.15074514]

>>15074342
There's a dude on reddit who has done some actual progress on the Collatz conjecture, but can't get his work recognized because all the pansy academics are like "umm, are you actually working on THAT, and with novel tools even? yikes, you must be a schizo..."

https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/z2v3gw/jeff_langarias_said_that_the_collatz_conjecture/ixj8r0p/

inb4 reddit I don't give a shit I hate academics more than reddit.

[Anonymous No.15074531]

>>15074514
> can't get his work recognized
don't exaggerate / lie. according to your link all his did was try to @Terry Tao on a Discord server and got no response.

[Anonymous No.15074543]

>>15074531
Don't diminish / lie. According to him he is clearly frightened to be labeled a crank for working on unpopular ideas.

https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/z2v3gw/jeff_langarias_said_that_the_collatz_conjecture/ixkf6zs/

[Anonymous No.15074551]

>>15074543
> I'm autistic, Aspergers', ADHD, OCD
It shows. By the look of it he can't have a single normal human interaction and thinks everyone hates or is laughing at him. No surprise he comes across as a weird crackpot to everyone else.

[Anonymous No.15074553]

>>15074551
>umm, are you actually working on THAT, and with novel tools even? yikes, you must be a schizo...
lmao, these faggy academics can't contain themselves

[Anonymous No.15074558]

>>15074553
that's not what the link says. he says he's too paranoid and scared to publish his work. you can't blame academia for his own personality issues.

[Anonymous No.15074567]

>>15074558
>The fact is, people (especially serious modern number theorists) don't like seeing the word "Collatz". The referee explicitly told me to try and write foundational papers that do not mention Collatz.
>The problem is, this creates a Catch-22 situation.
>Collatz is what makes (p,q) interesting. On the other hand, you need the (p,q)-adic analysis in order to make rigorous the bizarre type of sequence convergence that occurs in the course of applying Fourier analysis to Collatz. Thus, both Collatz and (p,q) rely on one another
>At no point has anyone sat down with me and discussed my research at my level. My work was completely disjoint from my advisors' areas of expertise.

>>Dude just try and go to Tao's office. If you live that close, why not?
>Behold the frightening Contact information page, particularly:
>Office: Mathematical Sciences 6183. I have a pigeonhole in MS 6364. Important note: Unsolicited surprise requests from strangers entering my office are essentially guaranteed to be met with a negative response.
>I’m quite worried about making myself look like a crank. I was summarily kicked off a discord server for mathematical analysts because the people there thought I was a crank. I’m worried about closing off channels of access.

Yeah sure, he is the problem.

[Anonymous No.15074570]

>>15074567
Not sure what you're taking from that. The guy has the communication skills of a potato and has no understanding of normal social interactions. All he has to do is publish some papers, get his name known so he isn't some random no-name, send out some emails. Job done.

[Anonymous No.15074571]

>>15074570
I'm taking that academia drones have 0 good faith to give, 0 empathy, 0 aperture of mind and their minds are filled with retarded taboos.

[Anonymous No.15074729]

>>15074479
The first 300 quintillion numbers go to 1. QED. Simple as. Only a retard wouldn’t accept that as proof.

[Anonymous No.15074753]

>>15074567
>check that page
>see Tao lists his pronouns
Good god they got to him

[Anonymous No.15074863]

>>15074551
on 4chan he would have been called a faggot, on reddit he receives a bunch of faggy loveydovey validation and praise. this is why I hate reddit

[Anonymous No.15074941]

>>15074729
>it works for many numbers so it must work for all numbers

thats not how proving shit works, retard

[Anonymous No.15074952]

>>15074941
*except for the numbers for which it hypothetically might not work
where my fields medal

[Anonymous No.15075005]

>>15074342
>Like, seriously, how can they not solve something as simple as the Collatz Conjecture?
that because they are using nazi quantum aryan physics, unlike my man Andrew Lehti, the homosexual antifascist/christian(no difference to him really) genius extraordinaire, pity the nazis over at CERN are out to get him for disproving the moon landing(yes, this fucker is real)

[Anonymous No.15075016]

>academia will never recognize my paper
>how do you know? have you published it?
>no
>why?
>because they will never recognize it
circular logic

[Anonymous No.15075019]

>>15074941
>gravity works in many places in the universe, so it must work everywhere
Do you also deny the existence of gravity because it isn’t “proven”? Lmao

[Anonymous No.15075021]

>>15074342
>xkcd
go home kid http://Reddit

[Anonymous No.15075024]

>>15075019
there's a reason why this board is called Science AND Math, and you're too stupid to get it

[Anonymous No.15075026]

>>15075016
>haha just pretend your work is not about Collatz but about something else, this is entirely normal behavior and not some idiotic taboo avoidance
>"but the tools I use are especially suited to work on Collatz type problems, so Collatz type problems are the justification for the use of such tools"
>umm you seem to lack back social skills?

[Anonymous No.15075028]

>>15075026
>back
*basic

[Anonymous No.15075030]

>>15075026
so many words dedicated to someone who has published nothing, come back when these tools are open so we can check their correctness

[Anonymous No.15075039]

>>15074342
The true point of math is to eventually break the hylic bonds of the material world and return to Pleroma. The platonic-mathematic realm were the perfect, unchanging, atemporal and aspatial mathematical objects from whom all reality emanates from reside.

[Anonymous No.15075053]

>>15075030
So many words dedicated to defending a stale academic culture of closed mindedness and credentialism.

[Anonymous No.15075064]

>>15075053
>academia is bad, but I won't publish my results to the world because I crave the approval of academia!
yep, so much for wanting to break the circle lol, you're all the same

[Anonymous No.15075131]

>>15075019
Nothing in physics is proven, but physics doesn't rely on proves. Physics relies on the ability to produce results that are "close enough", but in mathematics "close enough" isn't worth jack shit. You either gave definitive proof or you have nothing at all dipshit.

[Anonymous No.15075132]

>>15075064
>lol just change the entire world through your individual actions
>try hard
>umm your a schizo now you're ostracized and your life is ruined lol

>be less tryhard to avoid that outcome
>lol why doesn't he up effort in getting published?

As I said, 0 empathy, 0 good faith, 0 open mindedness, 0 self awareness.

[Anonymous No.15075155]

>>15075132
>publishing a PDF on arxiv and moving on with your life is too difficult!
lol

[Anonymous No.15075158]

>>15074514
This is you isnt it

[Anonymous No.15075162]

>>15075064
If you’re not actually memeing, go look up the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15075178]

>>15075162
Go look up the difference between being an incoherent faggot or actually having principles

[Anonymous No.15075181]

[Anonymous No.15075184]

If no athlete can run 100m in less than 8 seconds, then what are they even doing?

[Anonymous No.15075190]

>>15074342
Here's something I don't understand;

Why do mathematicians care so much about prime numbers?

Prime numbers seem quite arbitrary, and like a product of language more than anything.

The universe does not care about prime numbers. They have no basis in reality. So why the obsession?

[Anonymous No.15075197]

>>15075131
I say overwhelming evidence is good enough, how about you prove me wrong faggot?

[Anonymous No.15075202]

>>15075197
could you be even more underage?

[Anonymous No.15075203]

>>15075181
There are other reasons to study mathematics:
-Mathematical beauty.
-Mathematics is about abstract objects which exist on a level of reality more fundamental than the physical.

[Anonymous No.15075256]

>>15074342
Closest I could come up with is that the collatz decision tree appears to be a graph percolation.

[Anonymous No.15075284]

>>15075190
Primes are the building blocks of every other number, since every number can be expressed as a product of primes. They're also critical for modern encryption.

[Anonymous No.15075294]

>>15075197
How about looking into Skewe's number and Graham's number, idiot?

[Anonymous No.15075363]

>>15075190
I think the root of the obsession with number theory is that it's conceptually very basic to think about and technically extraordinarily complicated to prove things. It makes it feel "deep" to people. Also it probably helps some that many mathematicians are attached to number theory from their youth in a way that they aren't to something like algebraic topology, because number theory is some of the first math you show kids that isn't lame and boring

[Anonymous No.15075439]

>>15075155
>publishing
>on arxiv

[Anonymous No.15075449]

>>15075439
You upload to arxiv while you submit to journals that's how it is done

[Anonymous No.15075454]

>>15075439
if you believe accademia is corrupted why the fuck would you want accademia's approval?
this can only be possible if deep down you actually think academia is correct but you're too butthurt to face any criticism

it's basically like incels who claim that fat chicks are ugly and worthless but the reason they're incels is exactly because those fat women rejected them and they cared about theirnopinion

[Anonymous No.15075455]

>>15075449
He seems to have a few articles uploaded on arxiv on the matter, but arxiv is not publication, retard.

[Anonymous No.15075464]

>>15075454
>if you believe academia is corrupted why the fuck would you want academia's [monopoly on visibility]?
>this can only be possible if deep down you actually think academia is correct in [evaluating the importance of visibility of one's work] but you're too butthurt [about them gatekeeping new ideas from being seen]
Nice strawman, don't care, put it up your ass.

[Anonymous No.15075468]

>>15075197
Overwhelming evidence means literally nothing in mathematics. You either have conclusive proof or you have nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.15075469]

>>15075464
>NOOO I WANT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE HEKKIN JOURNALERINO SIMPLY BECAUSENOF VISIBILITY
>conveniently glosses over the fact that videos on the Collatz conjecture routinely rack up tens of thousands of views, meaning that if you made a video about your groundbreaking discovery you'd get infinitely more exposure than every single maths journal combined
nice cope my friend, maybe you should update your worldview of a couple of decades

[Anonymous No.15075473]

>>15075455
You're not saying anything interesting

[Anonymous No.15075478]

>>15075469
>making le heckin popmath video as a substitute of publication
Lmao, you can't be serious dude.
Go watch Veritasium or something, I bet you believe he's a really good scientist.

>>15075473
>publish it on arxiv
>"arxiv is not a journal"
>hurrrr ur not saying anything interesting
I'm just responding to you. Ask more interesting questions, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15075480]

>>15074514
You should know that it’s poor form to inb4 your own post.

[Anonymous No.15075483]

>>15075480
Call the oldfag police I don't give a shit.

[Anonymous No.15075489]

>>15075478
>NOOO I CAN'T MAKE A VIDEO AND LINK THE PAPER IN THE DESCRIPTION
lol, so this is how you cope? always moving the goalpost?
>n-no I don't care about academia's credentials!!! I care about vidibility!!!
>n-no I don't care about visibility in general, I only care about this extremely specific way to publish my results!!!
so, what's next champ? what's the next excuse?

[Anonymous No.15075498]

>>15075489
Does academia's cum really taste that good or are you just that much of a worthless homosexual?

[Anonymous No.15075501]

>>15075498
>I am literally arguing against publishing on a journal and instead going the independent route
>SO ATUALLY YOU LOVE ACADEMIA'S CUM HUH???
damn, I guess that's why you can't get your imaginary paper published, you're profoundly illiterate

[Anonymous No.15075508]

>>15075501
I don't have a paper to get published. I'm pointing out the flaws of academia.

[Anonymous No.15076137]

>>15075468
That’s your opinion

[Anonymous No.15076284]

>>15074553
>>15074558
I've had professors who genuinely saw themselves as gatekeepers of mathematics and would get visibly irritated with students for asking questions most of the time.

[Anonymous No.15076296]

>>15076284
The flaws of a bad educational environment. Who would've figured that the industrial model of education was bad for students?

[Anonymous No.15076312]

[Anonymous No.15076422]

[Anonymous No.15076440]

>>15075026
It seems like Perelman did just that, people don't like "fancy" and extraordinary claims like "I HaVE pRovEN tHIS centuries old conjecture"...

[Anonymous No.15076442]

>>15075190
That's because you're looking at prime numbers, when you should be looking at their complement, which is the composite numbers of the form [math]\mathbb{N}\mathbb{N}[/math] which is VERY useful, also the fact that this complement (the primes) generate composites.

[Anonymous No.15076443]

>>15075449
Good luck with the worthless moderators not filtering your work, you need some authority in mathematics or in any science really.

It's not the science that is wrong it's how they manage it

[Anonymous No.15076484]

>>15076442

[Anonymous No.15076602]

Y’know, I started this thread hoping that with our collective intelligence we could make some progress with the collatz conjecture or at least have fun trying. Probably my own fault this thread ended up the way it did seeing how I started it.

[Anonymous No.15076609]

>>15075203
Both of those come under entertainment

[Anonymous No.15076714]

>>15075197
There exists infinite positive integers larger than 2, therefore 2 is the smallest positive integer.

[Anonymous No.15076902]

>>15074952
The entire point is to give a good definition that everyone can use in a precise way, that's way some theorems are painfully obvious and overly complicated. If you want to proof that 2 is the only prime number that is even, and write "all primes are odd except for two" it's not concise enough to make it a valid proof neither a good definition. It's tedious? Yes but try to come with a better system without falling in inconsistencies.

[Anonymous No.15077046]

>>15075019
>I tested 420,000,000 primes greater than and including three and they’re all odd. There’s no even prime numbers

[Anonymous No.15077083]

>>15077046
the probabilistic method doesn't work like that

[Anonymous No.15077292]

>>15074342
Odd numbers always generate even numbers after getting (*3+1)'d. Half of all even numbers are divisible by four, meaning on average the even number generated after the odd gets divided by 3 or more. Once you consider 1/4 of all evens are divisible by eight, 1/8 by 16, etc., it's fairly obvious the values will always decrease over multiple iterations.

There may be a rigorous way to prove if 1 is a possible endpoint, but with a small enough set of numbers it would be easier to prove empirically.

[Anonymous No.15077297]

>>15075039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ic3qYSSk30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjLaECFDanE