I need to add something to the 3x+1 problem
If a number reduces to 0 as the x, it equals three+1=4
If a number reduces to 1, it still equals 3+1, which still gives you 4
I know Flannel hates messages like this if they’re off topic, but I make up for it with the math.
It always goes back on topic. But he’s a moderator.
Women don’t ever sexually choose good men. It’s impossible for them.
I don’t blame them. Women need protectors in a sex dimorphic species.
Good men don’t register as protectors.
I’ll give men very good advice about this in a sex dimorphic species.
Ignore it. Just be a good man. You’ll never get sex from women, but you have your soul to protect.
So. Back to the Rieman hypothesis. I’m going to word it better this time.
I did solve the continuum problem by the way in this thread. All numbers are countable in 1 to 1 correspondence,
That problem however being solved has to have real life applications.
The Reinman does. I’ll explain it better this time, so you understand.
There is always a hypothetical number which when arrived at can make all the numbers after it prime or divisible forever. So. you have to prove that number doesn’t exist. That primes are infinitely scattered. It’s impossible to prove.
The problem solved is that it’s impossible to solve. Try your best. I tried my best and I’m pretty good at seeing infinity. There will always be a shadow of doubt.
I’ll add to the last post as a mysterious after thought. I know the answer. Are there prime infinitesimals?
To add to all my unreplied to posts…
The new books are message forums.
My whole book is online.
Nobody publishes good stuff anymore in hard copy.
I gave you two good threads. My answers in the borderline thread are important too.
All women are borderline. You have to walk on eggshells for life to see them naked.
Men are less borderline, they actually will really commit suicide because women reject kind men.
They just don’t just threaten suicide to get their way.
They actually do it.
Let’s discuss this. 1/0 on my calculator defines it as infinity. That’s not true. It’s one being divided zero times. Meaning you have to remove the operator, meaning the correct answer is 1.
I hate when theists get into math and always define one as infinity.
Please get the theists out of math!
To add to this, lately theists have been defining one as a whole number is not a prime number.
Show me your proof
Read last two posts for context.
I hate Religion when it creeps up into science and math.
They’re defining 1 as infinity.
So. Does infinity + infinity equal two?
Actually, using operators and solutions it equals 5.
I don’t hate stupid people, But when you’re interfering with math because you believe god is everything, I will dislike you lots. I’ll put on a kind face for you, but you do not have my respect
I’ll add to the last post. I see operators as placeholders; I see them as numbers. Technically, infinity + infinity equals 5 is incorrect. It actually equals 7.
Now. I personally use unary. Base 1.
The operators in base 1 are the space key and the enter key. You can go to base two and only use one of them.
That’s all I have to sat about 1/0
Well. I just learned about Carmichael Numbers. Thought about it a little bit. I can’t be solved.
Just like the sequence of primes can’t be solved. Anything you solve about these problems will only be approximations. You’ll get closer and closer but never actually get there.
It’s for the same reason above for the Rieman hypothesis.
You have 4 possibilities.
There is a magic number in the sequence of infinity where every number after it…
is…
Always prime
or
always divisible evenly
or
Carmichael numbers
or it’s just scattered forever.
Now. If was going to make a new theorem about primes… prove or disprove that number exists or doesn’t exist.
I’m a pretty smart guy, I see numbers easily. Maybe someone smarter than me will come along and prove or disprove that limit.
I don’t believe it can be done
Hi Ec, again. It can be done, The collapsed wave or somethin, references ideas and such.
The trick is to let it pass, and the wave presumes it’s former shape, maybe?
)(
)()
Hofstatter on Cantor:
)((
Is the author Hofstadter cheating in his argument on completeness appling Cantor’s Diagonal Proof to Gödel’s (natural number) Numbering?
Asked 13 years, 7 months ago
Modified 8 years, 8 months ago
Viewed 1k times
1
Hofstadter in his book Gödel, Escher, Bachis describing Godel’s contradiction of sufficiently powerful versus complete. In the chapter 13 BlooP, FlooP, and GlooP he writes,
Now although completeness will turn out to be a chimera, TNT is at least complete with respect to primitive recursive predicates. In other words, any statement of number theory whose truth or falsity can be decided by a computer within a predictable length of time is also decidable inside TNT. (p418)
Hofstadter uses the previously introduced systems called TNT and BlooP as the base of his argument. He continues,
So the question really is, Can upper bounds always be given for the length of calculations [his definition of primitive recursive predicates]–or, is there an inherent kind of jumbliness to thenatural number system, which sometimes prevents calculation lengths from being predictable in advance? The striking thing is the latter is the case, and we are about to see why. […] In our demonstration, we will use the celebrated diagonal method by George Cantor, the founder of set theory. (p418)
Hofstadter’s proof begins with a set of functions understood to be primitive recursive functions called Blueprograms {#N}[N]. To my understanding this is an array with index {#N}, accepting the value [N] as an argument.
Then to form the proof (within the section titled “The Diagonal Method”) Hofstadter adds +1 to it, and finally assigns this value to a new function called Bluediag[N]:
Bluediag[N] = 1 + Blueprogram {#N}[N]
He concludes that simply by adding +1 to the set Blueprograms the new set (or superset) called Bluediag lies outside the realm of primitive recursive functions. (p420) Thus demonstrating it is likely impossible to test for primitive recursive functions.
This may all be well and good. If true–to my mind–its due to the paradoxical or loopy nature of recursion, and not to Cantor’s diagonal method for real numbers. My modest understanding of the orders of infinity says that adding +1 to infinity does not change the size of infinity. This is the Hilbert Hotel non-intuitive Paradox says infinity + infinity = infinity.
See also Why Doesn’t Cantor’s Diagonal Argument Also Apply to Natural Numbers?
Cite
Follow
CommunityBot
1
asked Nov 7, 2011 at 13:32
22111 silver badge88 bronze badges
- Doesn’t Hofstadter say explicitly that his presentation is not quite right? I remember reading words to that effect in the BlooP, FlooP and GooP discussion.
- I’m reading the book now. If he does, I haven’t found the passage.
- I’ll see if I can dig it up.
- I changed my comment. On rereading I noticed it was distractedly familiar to the Barber of Seville Paradox, “If he does, Then he doesn’t.” (^_^)
- Oh I see. I wondered why I just got a notification. That section is pretty dense. I’ll probably have to reread it in its entirety to find the relevant passage.
()
am I on the right track? I wonder? If not no worries, besides the mathematics befuddled Cantor himself.
The simplest way to understand infinity + 1 is to understand that it collapses the wave function and just equals 1. Infinity cannot be added to, to make a larger number.
Read above post as well, meaning whatever you add to infinity, you have to subtract infinity, the remainder is what you added to it.
Now let’s talk about Cantor’s diagonal problem where he invents orders of infinity. There are no orders of infinity.
He tried to list them, but he missed the obvious.
1.) 000…
2.) 111…
3.) 0101…
etc…
What he failed to see is that he had to start typing those numbers in time.
So, I used the same technique.
0.0
1.0
0.1
1.1
2.0
0.2
1.2
2.1
2.2
There is no diagonal for this continued method
I’m counting all the possible numbers in sequence just like he did but without contradiction.
Eventually you hit 9.9 in this sequence in base 10.
Then you start again, but you start with …
00.00.
There are ways to do this wiithout overlap from the first sequence, but to make it simple, I’ll just use the overlap.
Then you hit 99.99.
Then you restart at…
000.000 and move from there until you hit 999.999
Then you reset at 0000.0000.
I’m slowly expanding these numbers just like he slowly expanded his numbers, but I’m doing it without diagonalization being a higher order of infinity.
Poor Cantor, it was so easy to see.
Yes and that is agreed, but the very simplicity contains the implied complexity which pertains to the limitation of the function, that refers to intuitive math, and the failure of that argument proposed by Russel and Frege et al. , so it makes one wonder about subjugating philosophy to mathematics, whereas a synthesis is still narrowly sustained to this day.