It’s easy to solve with logic.
Infinity +1 equals a finite number, …1
Therefor the 1, 4 loop happens with every number.
Are you kidding me? This is supposed to be the hardest math problem??!!!
I’m pretty sure 1 is not a finite number, even though it is whole.
I think it’s one of those situations where a number can be both finite (in the sense of whole) and infinite.
Kinda like a fractal is infinite, but with a limit.
It’s too bad I have no idea what I’m talking about.
even if 1 is an infinite number, it’s still1 one. which still causes the 4, 1 loop
Well, 3x+1 is a problem only because it can’t regularly predict how fast you get to 1 from an odd number, unlike dividing an even number by 2. Right?
Question. Does every odd number eventually get to 10 with this method?
Have no idea if that is even a relevant question. It just seems like once you get to 10, you’re getting to 1 in a predictable number of steps. So it’s almost like getting to 10 is getting to 1.
It’s too bad I have no idea what I’m talking about.
zero is a placeholder, it doesn’t matter for this conjecture. No. They don’t all pass through ten first.
Is the problem the loop? Because 1 is treated as odd rather than whole?
Can you give me an example of an odd number that does not pass through 10 during the sequence?
When you consider math from my perspective, I don’t use placeholders.
That’s what humans do because their minds can’t process that much information.
Which is not a bad thing. But when you throw zero into the mix, all numbers equal zero instead of the 1,4 loop
That’s not how this conjecture was formulated.
There are much more difficult outstanding math problems than this to solve.
Take the quadratic equation. Only 4 variables. Solve it for infinity and you deserve a math prize.
Don’t change the subject. Zero in the one’s place in the number 10 does not mean everything‘s gonna go to zero. Why are you doing this?
This isn’t helping. You deserve to get mentally punched.
This is why math is bad.
Just answer my question.
And you’re cheating. just a little. Tell me which number doesn’t go through a hundred or even a thousand. I’m not doing a proof right now, but 11 shouldn’t go through ten. I can check the proof if I you want me to.
Fine. Answer this question. If you don’t use placeholders, so that you don’t group numbers/items into manageable sets, how are you counting?
Here’s me cheating. Put in any odd number & find one that doesn’t have a dot on 10.
All it has to do is a trick with the particular base you’re using.
We happen to have 5 fingers and toes on each hand or foot for most of us.
That was the roman standard. Then we decided base 10 for ten toes and fingers.
if you use base 11, you can upset the system. That’s why 11 should work. Base plus one.
Base plus one has lots of strange properties, even in fractions.
That’s a somewhat brilliant answer. But you can’t square a circle.
I’ve tried it before. You need to use one dimensional math to do it.
That’s not one-dimensional math.
In physical reality, the corners of the squares always interfere, that’s why pi is an irrational number. Actually, a transcendental number.
But in order to count an infinite number of things, you first have to prove they are either a) all the same sort of thing, or b) all completely unique … so that harmonic taxonomy thing in the other thread I started is prior to even counting anything.
And after you have proved they are either the same sort of thing or completely unique from each other, then you have to come up with an infinite number of unique numbers to represent them. The numbers themselves would be placeholders, so why not just use the concrete items instead?
But what is even the point of counting them?
First, it’s going to take you an infinite amount of time to even come up with the unique placeholder numbers, if you’ve even been able to prove the items are unique, or all the same sort, which also would take at least an infinite amount of time, so then when you set about counting them, that’s gonna take another infinite amount of time.
Why not just go with the harmonic taxonomy and skip numbers altogether?
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Is there some particular reason we would need to square a circle?
I mean, if you got this recipe that has measurements, but you got this grandma that’s been cooking for years and doesn’t need to measure anything, what the fuck does math matter? She can taste it. She doesn’t need numbers. Just ‘cause she can’t tell you the numbers doesn’t mean she can’t bake a good freaking cake.
Numbers don’t taste like anything.
Cakes can come in any shape.
It’s still base 10.
And it still goes through 10 in the sequence. Put the number into that calculator I linked to up there.
I know you’re not as stupid as you’re pretending to be, so please just stop.
No, I’m really explaining this to you simply. 11 has the strangest properties IN BASE 10!!!
I mean, we can go into base 11. The strangest number would be 12!!!
1 plus base is always the strangest number.
Oh!!! Now you’re bringing up the problem of does 0.9 repeating equal 1.
Thanks for the chart. Now I have my bearings