What is the Collatz Problem and how can it be solved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Organic
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Collatz problem and the implications of fixing the variable k within its mathematical framework. Participants debate whether k should be considered fixed or variable, with arguments suggesting that treating k as fixed leads to contradictions in the proof structure. The concept of decidability is also scrutinized, with claims that the Collatz problem is undecidable due to its reliance on the axioms of infinity and the inherent symmetry of the Binary Tree. The conversation highlights the complexity of proving the Collatz conjecture and the necessity of clarifying terms like "out of range" and "fixed" in mathematical discourse. Ultimately, the participants emphasize the need for rigorous definitions and logical consistency in mathematical proofs related to the Collatz problem.
  • #151
Hurkyl,

This is exactly the beautiful thing in {_} content, for example:

.__. = Finite line = [__]

__ = Infinite line = (__)

.__ = Infinite line = [__)

|{.__.}| = 1

|{.____.}| = 1

|{.________.}| = 1

|{.__}| = 1

|{__}| = 1

Shortly speaking, __ is the essence of an invareant self similarity over scales.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Matt,
To say that you might have 2s or 3s in the strings of 0s and 1s is frankly misleading,
I don't believe that you as a mathematician say such things.

In base 2 the notations are 0,1

In base 3 the notations are 0,1,2

In base 4 the notations are 0,1,2,3

And so on ... (the fixed base value is only in your head)

In my model the important thing is the power_value, where base value
can be any finite natural number.

Because you can't understand the idea of probability in my system, let us look at it without using probability.

by construction though the element at n(z) has only finitely many non-zero entries
Each row is a unique combination of infinitely long sequence of notations (depends on base value) no more no less.

If power value is non finite then “left” side can be (when base value = 2) …000…, …111… or any sub-combination of 01 notations.
 
Last edited:
  • #153
you fixed base 2, don't start changing it now. these things you write down are the indicator functions of sets and thus only take values 0 and 1. Where did you start to bring base 3 or different? what would base 3 even mean. don't answer that as it isn't important and just let's you wriggle out of justifying anything again.

look at your own paper the colums are labelled with powers of 2, that's the key thing.

and as the specific case of 2 here is false, the general case, whatever that might be, cannot be true.

by construction you do not produce any strings with infinitely many 1s in them if you are claiming to be able to enumerate them as you do.

Pick any element in the list, look we've proved it has only a finite number of non-zero entries if your claimed enumeration is true.

therefore your claimed enumeration is false, not mathematics.

and moreover the claimed enumeration sends a string to the binary expansion it denotes, and thus can only be defined for strings with finitely many 1s in.how is it bad mathematics to state a string of 0s and 1s cannot have 3s or 4s in it? i'd have thought that was bloody well obvious.
 
Last edited:
  • #154
Originally posted by Organic
Please look at my paper:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ET.pdf

I read it.

There is nothing there that applies to the current discussion.

However, there are many comments I can make about its contents.

1. You define "equation trees" in a barely acceptable way (though *very* informal), but then you start using undefined notations and properties. Examples: "symmetry-degree", "information's clarity-degree", the "xor" notation in page 2, the parentheses notation on page 3.

2. On page 3, you say that these trees may be used to "construct and explore complex relations between elements". With "elements", do you mean natural numbers? If so, your assertion is wrong, since natural numbers are well defined already. Your "equation trees" are based on them, and cannot produce further understanding of the numbers they are buit upon!

3. The diagrams on pages 4 and 5 are simple exercises in combinatorics. No new info is gained from looking at them explicitly.

4. On page 6, the product of ET's is never defined. Furthermore, in order to decide if the system is commutative or not, you need to define: a) how to obtain the product, and b) when ET's are equal (the drawings you show there are indeed different, but they could perfectly be two different "symbols" for the same trees).

5. Diagrams in page seven, again, are never defined. They seem entertaining to make, but they also seem useless. The "operations" marked in blue on them also use an undefined notation.

6. Page 9: You never defined what "information point" is supposed to mean.

7. The drawings that occupy the entirety of pages 9 and 10 give no new information, neither do they illustrate any idea from the text. They seem, again, as simple exercises on combinatorics (... related to an unspecified problem).

I'm sorry to say this, Doron, but your "complementarytheory" is really far from providing any insight into natural numbers, and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

However, you are putting a lot of effort into this. Why not taking a "vacation" from defending your theories and spend the time learning (with an open mind) how things are done in "standard" math? You could gain much from it. I mean it, I'm not trying to patronize you or be condescending.
 
  • #155
in addition to all that, ahrkron, it has come to light that when he says tree he doesn't mean tree as you or i would understand it, but actually a cantor set. apparently it's ok to do this because we're in theory development. as this thread was started by Organic in a math forum and as he never offered a definition of his 'tree', I don't find that a remotely compelling argument, don't know about anyone else. There's also the issue that post facto redefining extant terms to suit yourself is frowned upon: how do we even know that what organic means by cantor set is what the rest of the world means? He didn't even know what a bijection was until it was explained to him, but that hadn't stopped him talking about them before, so the chances of him knowing what a cantor set really is are quite slim.
 
Last edited:
  • #156
ahrkron,

All you demonstrate is that at this point you don't understand my work, no less no more.

By the way, because you are a professional mathematician with maybe a lot of knowledge please show me some mathematical branch where multiplication and addition are complementary operations, for example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf

You are invited to visit my web site: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CATpage.html

And maybe if you will let your self to be opened to another point of view on Math language, we will be able to communicate with each other in the near future.

Yours,

Organic
 
  • #157
Originally posted by Organic By the way, because you are a professional mathematician with maybe a lot of knowledge please show me some mathematical branch where multiplication and addition are complementary operations, for example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf

if i go to that article will it define what it means for two binary operations to be complementary? Let's see...

oh look no it doesn't! so simply here and now define what it means for two binary operations to be complementary. Acutally, could you even justify why they are operations on N? each element of N is a collection of partitions of a set with n elements. you mulitply 2*3 and get _some_ of the partitions for 6, but you don't acutally get a number do you, you don't get an element of N. You get a subset of an element of N. How can that define a binary operation from NxN to N? so it is a map from NxN to something that isn't N, even with your definitions of numbers.

I can see an easy way of coming up with some analogy using operads and turning them into, perhaps, some groupoid in a second way, which is after all all we need to do -- your multiplication isn't defined on all partitions, only some of them, at least that is what you appear to say (that bit about structure on page 2)
 
Last edited:
  • #158
Originally posted by Organic
All you demonstrate is that at this point you don't understand my work, no less no more.

I understand your desire to create on math, and some of your intent while defining the ET's, but I also understand clearly that there are many flaws on your attempt.

It is not necessary to understand the totality of your work in order to see the problems I pointed out in my previous post.

And maybe if you will let your self to be opened to another point of view on Math language

I am very much open to new math concepts and notations. I frequently use quite bizarre notations myself, but it is important to do it in a self consistent way.

Also, if you are to claim that you have uncovered anything about natural numbers, you need to make sure that you translate properly between your own symbols and those used by other people. Otherwise, you need to say "I have discovered fascinating properties about what I call natNumis"; you will surely have less of an audience that way.

Finally, if you allow me, I'd like to advise you not to disregard criticism made on your ideas by just saying "you didn't understand me", since then you will not gain anything from the interaction, and you risk loosing an oportunity to correct perceived or real errors on your work. Very often, good science is done by giving up on ideas that seemed beautiful and that were close to our hearts, but were incorrect nonetheless.

[Edit: added last 4 words]
 
Last edited:
  • #159
Dear Matt,

0,1 (base 2) is just some example that can be translated to any fractal which is based on some finite n>1.

A fractal, as you know has a non-linear property and in the case of base 2 we gat a Binary tree, that can be represented in non-compressed way by an ordered matrix of aleph0 width on 2^aleph0 length 01 notations.
 
  • #160
Dear ahrkron
Finally, if you allow me, I'd like to advise you not to disregard criticism made on your ideas by just saying "you didn't understand me", since then you will not gain anything from the interaction, and you risk loosing an oportunity to correct perceived or real errors on your work.
First thank you for your gentle and posivite attitude, but from criticism I have have learned that you simply don't understand my work,therefore the detailed remarks that you gave in the previous posts, cannot help not to you an not to me, at this stage.

If you agree let me start step by step and ask you again this question:

Because you are a professional mathematician with maybe a lot of knowledge please show me some mathematical branch where multiplication and addition are complementary operations, for example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ASPIRATING.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #161
but it is you assertion that the set rows simultaneously countable, uncountable, and obtained by some undefined induction that is not true.

forget fractals, forget probability.

you cannot, have not, and evidently will not prove anything about the rows. I have, on the other hand, proved you are wrong and you haven't managed to contradict the proof I've offered. Perhaps because you yourself do not even know how to produce this array 'inductively'?

Do you agree that the first column (on the right) is the sequence 01010101... that the second column is 00110011... etc

that is that by construction there rows are countable - their are as many rows as there entries in a sequence and the sequence is indexed by N.

Now why do you insist that there must be 2^aleph-0 of them when my proof demonstrates that under this construction there are no infinite subsets of N in the construction?
 
  • #162
Matt,

Why you repeat yourself?

You proved nothing.

My matrix of 01 notations is:
Code:
<---width=aleph0 ---0
                    | 
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |                    
                    |
                    |
                    |
              length=2^aleph0  
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    |                    
                    |
                    |
                    |
                    V
and both width and length are countable and any row or column is a non-finite unique sequence of 01 notations.

By the way it is constructed the result cannot be but an aleph0 x 2^aleph0 01 matrix, where aleph0 cannot be beyond the infinitly many notations from one hand, and also to be their cardinal on the other hand.

The reason is very simple and can be demostrated in this model:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

Therefore the the idea of the transfinite universes is a conceptual mistake.

Your "proof" that takes any ... as ...000... simply demonstrates that you closed under this conceptual mistake.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
I repeat myself because I am correct. We have agreed on how to construct this infinite array, yes?

the first column is on the right, then going to the left we number the columns accordingly.

the first column is 'based on 2^1' and goes 0101010101...

the second colummn reads, downwards, 00110011...

and so on for each column.

the r^th column starts with r zeroes.
then r ones then r zeroes...
Yes?

Let t be any row, the entry in the s'th place (reading right to left) is the entry from the s'th column.

whenever s >t this entry must be zero.

therefore any row is eventually all zeroes, and every element you enumerate in the power set is finite.

Read that argument carefully and don't dismiss it simply because it is me. as you keep telling people they must be open to new ideas, well, so must you.

so go through it and at each point tell me what you think is wrong with the deduction there.
 
  • #164
Matt,

I have no choice bu to say it again,

By the way it is constructed the result cannot be but an aleph0 x 2^aleph0 01 matrix, where aleph0 cannot be beyond the infinitly many notations from one hand, and also to be their cardinal on the other hand.

The reason is very simple and can be demostrated in this model:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

Therefore the the idea of the transfinite universes is a conceptual mistake.

Your "proof" that takes any ... as ...000... simply demonstrates that you closed under this conceptual mistake.

Please try carefully to understand my model of infinity.
 
  • #165
which ... am i taking to be alll zero? I'm not doing any such thing.

so take my proof point by point and say what's wrong at each point.

anyone else reading this care to tell me where it goes wrong?

(the link you point to is of no importance here)does the rth column not go 000..01111..11100..0001111.111...

where the are r zeroes and r ones in each block?

look at the diagrams you've drawn. look at the 1st row. doesn't it go 00000 all the way across (i'm reading the numbers backwards here)

doesn't the second row go 1000000...

doesn't the third go 0100000... thence all zeroes?

doesn't the 4th go 1010000000...thence all zeroes

look at the 5th rowtake the 6th entry from the right. that is the 5th entry in the 6th column, the 6th column starts with 6 zeroes.

look at the 7th entry in the 5th row, it comes from the 5th entry in the 7th column, the 7th colum starts with 7 zeroes

look at the rth column where r is bigger than 5. it starts with r zeroes, so the 5th one must be a zero.now i can repeat that for any row, and see that the t'th row is all zeroes after the t'th entry by the way you've defined the columns.

now which step is wrong in that?

now, you claim that the rows enumerate the power set of N, by the standard indicator function argument, I've just shown you every row has a finite number of 1's in it.
here's a little test. Let S_n be a set with n elements. is the union over n in N countable? yes. suppose now S_n has 2^n elements in it. is the union over n in N countable? yes, but you seem to think it isn't because of this axiom of infinity misconception you have lying around.

anyway, take the proof rewritten there including an illustration of the method for the specific exanples of t=1,2..5 and explain where it is wrong.
 
  • #166
Matt,

Also please look at this:
Code:
    3 2 1 0
   2 2 2 2
   ^ ^ ^ ^
   | | | |
   v v v v
...1 1 1 1 <--> 1
...1 1 1 0 <--> 2
...1 1 0 1 <--> 3
...1 1 0 0 <--> 4
...1 0 1 1 <--> 5
...1 0 1 0 <--> 6
...1 0 0 1 <--> 7
...1 0 0 0 <--> 8
...0 1 1 1 <--> 9
...0 1 1 0 <--> 10
...0 1 0 1 <--> 11
...0 1 0 0 <--> 12
...0 0 1 1 <--> 13
...0 0 1 0 <--> 14
...0 0 0 1 <--> 15
...0 0 0 0 <--> 16
...
 
  • #167
and how are we defining this this time? what makes you think the rows you've now defined are included in the original construction? you say they must be without offering any proof, other than asserting something that is unjustified (because of you misconception about the axiom of infinity) proof, and i prove they aren't.

it doesn't matter if you even permute rows because i can just unpermute them back to the form you have in the article.

it looks like you've just put 1s in every place above the diagonal, and thus you've exactly got the elements of the power set whose complement contains only finitely many elements, these are called cofinite and are also countable.so, go through the water tight proof I've offered you twice now in the last 5 posts or so alone (and many times before that) point be point and say where you think it is wrong, and why, and give a counter example based upon the construction you offer in the article newdiagonl.pdf which it has to be said is now worse because you've taken out any mention of how you actually *might* construct the infinite array.
 
  • #168
Matt,

What is the result of 2^aleph0 - aleph0?
 
  • #169
if by that what you mean what is the cardinality of a set of cardinality 2^aleph-0 after removing aleph-0 elements, then the answer is that the cardinality of this set is strictly greater then aleph-0. (it is 2^aleph-0 as we will show)

simple example: there is a bijection between between R and R\Z

defein the map piecewise

on [0,1)

send 0 to 1/2, 1/2 to 1/3, 1/3 to 1/4 etc call this map f and extend to the rest of [0,1) by setting it to be the identity

define the map analogously on each interval [n,n-1)alternatively, for R\N, say, it is still infinite, let x(n) be any sequence in R\N, send

n to x(2n) and x(2n) to x(2n+1)

that do you?
 
  • #170
Thank you Matt,

So if you look now at this:
Code:
    3 2 1 0                   3 2 1 0
   2 2 2 2                   2 2 2 2
   ^ ^ ^ ^                   ^ ^ ^ ^
   | | | |                   | | | |
   v v v v                   v v v v
...0 0 0 0 <--> 1    or   ...1 1 1 1 <--> 1
...0 0 0 1 <--> 2    or   ...1 1 1 0 <--> 2
...0 0 1 0 <--> 3    or   ...1 1 0 1 <--> 3    
...0 0 1 1 <--> 4    or   ...1 1 0 0 <--> 4    
...0 1 0 0 <--> 5    or   ...1 0 1 1 <--> 5   
...0 1 0 1 <--> 6    or   ...1 0 1 0 <--> 6    
...0 1 1 0 <--> 7    or   ...1 0 0 1 <--> 7    
...0 1 1 1 <--> 8    or   ...1 0 0 0 <--> 8   
...1 0 0 0 <--> 9    or   ...0 1 1 1 <--> 9   
...1 0 0 1 <--> 10   or   ...0 1 1 0 <--> 10  
...1 0 1 0 <--> 11   or   ...0 1 0 1 <--> 11  
...1 0 1 1 <--> 12   or   ...0 1 0 0 <--> 12  
...1 1 0 0 <--> 13   or   ...0 0 1 1 <--> 13  
...1 1 0 1 <--> 14   or   ...0 0 1 0 <--> 14
...1 1 1 0 <--> 15   or   ...0 0 0 1 <--> 15  
...1 1 1 1 <--> 16   or   ...0 0 0 0 <--> 16
...                  or   ...

or a mixing of them
has a length of 2^aleph0 unique 01 sequences.
 
  • #171
and what? why won't you even attempt to refute the proof offered that you're wrong? if you're so sure of you position it should be quite easy for you.i'm not sure where you're going but the two lists you've written enumerate the finte and cofinite elements of the power set. there are more sets in the power set than that. in fact it is a trivial exercise to show that the countable union of countable sets is countable, and you're not going to get anywhere with this idea.

come on organic, you think i don't understand infinity, and you're the expert. what's wrong with the proof offered to you?

it is perfectly mathematically sound. you're not the first person to have made this mistake and you won't be the last.
 
  • #172
Hurkyl,

This is exactly the beautiful thing in {_} content, for example:

.__. = Finite line = [__]

__ = Infinite line = (__)

.__ = Infinite line = [__)

|{.__.}| = 1

|{.____.}| = 1

|{.________.}| = 1

|{.__}| = 1

|{__}| = 1

Shortly speaking, __ is the essence of an invareant self similarity over scales.

So how do you reconsile this with the fact that, if I assume the real numbers are countable, I can prove the real numbers have a length less than 1/2?



Anyways, one of your major problems is that you seem to confuse the order of the quantifiers in the statements we make.


For example, consider these two statements:

For any (non-bald) person P you pick, I can choose a color C, such that person P's hair is color C.

I can choose a color C, such that for any (non-bald) person P you pick, that person P's hair is color C.


One of these claims is very easy, and one of these is impossible! I hope this demonstrates why the order of these operations is important.


Sometimes, doing things procedurally helps understanding. You fulfill each quantifier one step at a time before moving onto the next one.

For instance, I claim this is possible:

Step 1: You choose any person.
Step 2: I choose a single color.
Fact: The person you chose has hair with the color I chose.

Proof: At step 2, I can look at the person you chose, and select his hair color.

I claim this is not always possible.

Step 1: I choose a single color.
Step 2: You choose any person
Fact: The person you chose has hair with the color I chose.

Proof: At step 2, you know what color I chose, and you can choose a person with a different hair color.


The problem at hand (enumerating the list of binary sequences)

There exists a list L such that for any binary sequence S, S is on the list L.

So you have to do this in steps:

Step 1: You have to choose a list.
Step 2: I choose a binary sequence.
Query: Is the sequence I chose on the list you choose?

Now, the kicker is that step 2 doesn't happen until you've completely specified your list L. Once I've chosen a binary sequence, you can't go back and change your list.

Let me say this again.
You have to specify everything relevant about your list before we start choosing binary sequences.

Let me give an example.

Suppose you give us a specification for a list.
We mention a binary sequence.
You come back with a new specification for a list.

In this example, you have failed. The list must be completely specified before we start choosing real numbers.



And, incidentally, for your latest attempt, I choose the binary sequence:
...010101

that is, the sequence \{x_n\} where x_i = (1 + (-1)^i)/2 (i \in \mathbb{N}), or equivalently, x_i = 1 iff x_i is even.
 
  • #173
Matt,

You Wrote:
I've just shown you every row has a finite number of 1's in it.
If this is your proof then it does not hold on this:
Code:
   3 2 1 0
   2 2 2 2
   ^ ^ ^ ^
   | | | |
   v v v v
...1 1 1 1 <--> 1
...1 1 1 0 <--> 2
...1 1 0 1 <--> 3
...1 1 0 0 <--> 4
...1 0 1 1 <--> 5
...1 0 1 0 <--> 6
...1 0 0 1 <--> 7
...1 0 0 0 <--> 8
...0 1 1 1 <--> 9
...0 1 1 0 <--> 10
...0 1 0 1 <--> 11
...0 1 0 0 <--> 12
...0 0 1 1 <--> 13
...0 0 1 0 <--> 14
...0 0 0 1 <--> 15
...0 0 0 0 <--> 16
...
because now the next notation in ... is always 1.

You conceptual mistake is this:

You clime that each column is constructed from finite number of 0 or 1 notations, therefore the list is a collection of infinitely many finite structures and therefore it is a countable list.

Also you clime that each length of 0 or 1 sequences along each column must be infinitely long, which means that if we start from 0 notation we will never get 1 notation or if we start in 1 notation (in the above example) we will never get 0 notation, therefore we can conclude that the length of each column must be countable and finite.

My answers are:

1) by using this trick 0 0' 1 1' 2 2' 3 3' 4 4' ( please see http://home.ican.net/~arandall/abelard/math12/Cantor.html )
we can build this list:
Code:
    3 2 1 0
   2 2 2 2
   ^ ^ ^ ^
   | | | |
   v v v v
...1 1 1 1 <--> 1 (1)
...0 0 0 0 <--> 2 (1') 
...1 1 1 0 <--> 3 (2)
...0 0 0 1 <--> 4 (2')
...1 1 0 1 <--> 5 (3)
...0 0 1 0 <--> 6 (3')
...1 1 0 0 <--> 7 (4)
...0 0 1 1 <--> 8 (4') 
...
which is a mixed list of positive-negative sequences of 2^aleph0 length.

2) aleph0 as some "transfinite" object beyond n in N CANNOT EXIST because when we go beyond n in N we are in no information state for any mathematical research (in this case no base value can exists therefore no_base_value^aleph0 is meaningless), as clearly can be shown in this model:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/RiemannsLimits.pdf

It goes like this:

No base_value --> no notations --> on information --> no Math (--> no "transfinite" universes).

Shortly speaking, the "transfinite" universes do not hold water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #174
but you're cheating by writing that, aren't you? that isn't the array you had in the article that you've been using. that array, if it is defined in the obvious way lists the cofinite sets and I can prove by the same argument but switching a couple of details that not all the sets in the power set are there, indeed only a countable number of them are.

I proved that none of the elements on the new list youve written down is on the old one.

You haven't properly specified how to generate that list.Read Hurkyl's last post about how you fix the selection of elements in the power set (by the construction in the paper where the 1st column is 010101... the second is 00110011..) and THEN we find something not on the list (any infinite element of the power set).Now you introduce a new list with no finite element of the power set on it.

not every element of the power set is on the two lists; it would take an uncountable set of lists like this to do so.

why do you think you can just create a new list like this?

go back, quote my proof, and after each step say whether you agree or disagree with the deduction and why, offering counter example or counter proof if you think you can.

my proof had nothing to do with the new list you've produced, but it didnt' have to deal with it.it is only your belief that you can continue to enumerate the rows AND have them be the power set because you think the finite case implies the infinite. that is not true, as this argument proves, and as you yourself prove, but then disregard becuase it doesn't suit your argument. you cannot prove what you want because it isn't true, and your only argument against this is 'well i think it ought to be'.
 
  • #175
just seen your edited post. it contains many more errorsat no point to i state that if the column starts with a 0 it stays 0, in fact i state it is an alternating block of r 0s, then r 1s then r0s and so on, for the rth column.

read the proof, defined for the array as you wrote it in the original form.your new array interleaves finite and cofinites sets. the set of even integers is not on the list.
 
  • #176
Matt,

I proved that the "tranfinite" (what I call an actual infinity) is beyond Math language.
 
  • #177
you haven't rebutted the proof i gave.

all the assertions you make about my 'claims' are wrong seeing as

1. you are the person defining the array

2. you state they [the rows] are countable AND they are all the elements of the power set.

3. i do not claim that any block of 0s or 1s in any column is infinite


3. the r'th column is infinite the entries are defined in alternating finite blocks of 0s and 1s, do you not remember how you defined them? you have expunged the construction from the latest version, whioch means that we actually no longer know what the definition for the infinite array is explicitly.


4. why is it important that my proof doesn't hold on something that it wasnt even defined for?


5. aleph-0 isn't a number, why do you keep pretending that it is? there is not an aleph-0'th place on the list. aleph-0 is the 'cardinality of the set N, it is a definition, that is all.


I do not need to prove anything about this second list as you've defined the entries in the t'th row to all be 1 after the t'th place, hence every row corresponds to a set whose complement is finite.



so, take the proof offered to you repeatedly wuote it and after each line state what you consider to be wrong with it.

I can simply state what's wrong with your proofs - they contain unfounded suppositions about infinite sets.
 
  • #178
tell you what, let's end any doubt

pick one of your diagrams - either the original or the new interleaved one

the list of rows is countable in your opnion, tell me what the row labelled t corresponds to, how does one generate its elements?
 
  • #179
5. aleph-0 isn't a number, why do you keep pretending that it is? there is not an aleph-0'th place on the list. aleph-0 is the 'cardinality of the set N, it is a definition, that is all.
Aleph0 as "transfinite" object is beyond Math language.

Therefore any use of in by Math is nonsence.

Cantor started this nonsence, you continue "using" it.
 
Last edited:
  • #180
My list cannot be but an ordered list of unique combinations of 01 notations in each row and in each column, where each row is aleph0 width and each column is 2^aleph0 length.

It is simple and clear but the "transfinite" nonsence does not give you the chance to see it.

Aleph0 cannot be but a potential infinity.
 
Last edited:
  • #181
give the method of construction of your infinite list.

how do you enumerate the t'th row?

it looks as though

you send the string (x_0,x_1,x_2...

with the ordering going backwards from the article's as you read right to left there

to the expansion (\sum x_i2^i) -1

is that what you're doing?
 
  • #182
it should be noted that I'm not saying the power set of N doesn't have 2^alpeh-0 elements, but i have disproved your attempted enumerable construction of it.
 
  • #183
Hurkyl,

until you've completely specified your list L.
This is what so beautiful in fractals, the quantity does not matter but the invariant self similarity over scales.

Any form of a^b is a fractal.

My list has a^b form, therefore it is satisfied by its own self similarity (again quantity does not matter).
And, incidentally, for your latest attempt, I choose the binary sequence:
...010101
Contors diagonal is an aleph0 width of my list, therefore ...010101 is already in the list, which its length is 2^aleph0.
 
Last edited:
  • #184
My list has a width of arithmatic row of (if base 2) 0,1 notations,
and a length of geometric column of 0,1 notations.

Width and length are non-finite.

but i have disproved your attempted enumerable construction of it.
You disproved nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • #185
so let's suppose 01010101... (the even numbers in N) is on the enumerated portion of the list.it must be at some point r for some r in N, say: the r'th row.r cannot be one of the rows you've now put in with all 1's eventually, so it must be one of the other ones. look how they're constructed.. oh, see that every entry is eventually zero so 010101... can't be on of the enumerated rows.so we can just consider the diagram without the infinite row of ones, and go back to the first diagram you have.

ever column after the rth has at least r zeros at the beginning and therefore cannot contribute a 1 to the r'th row in this diagram.

brick and wall spring to minddo you even accept that given a string of 0s and 1s and that if the list is enumerable we can just consider the row it corresponds to?
 
  • #186
How do you deal with the fact that if the real numbers are assumed to be a countable set, that I can prove their total length is less than 1/2?


Contors diagonal is an aleph0 width of my list, therefore ...010101 is already in the list, which its length is 2^aleph0.

What is the number of the row which contains it?

(Incidentally, due to the way you wrote it, I don't even know what is the number of the row that contains the all ones sequence!)
 
  • #187
Originally posted by Organic
My list has a width of arithmatic row of (if base 2) 0,1 notations,
and a length of geometric column of 0,1 notations.

Width and length are non-finite.You disproved nothing.

show me where the proof goes wrong? quote it word for word and point out exactly where the proof is wrong for the list as defined in your article.

Better yet in this forum explicitly define how the list is formed?I cannot offer to show where your proof that the list is both countable and contains all the elements of the power set goes wrong because you do not prove that it eumerates all of the power set, just state it must.Come on, quote that proof, and explain the flaw you think there is in it. simple, couldn't be simpler?
 
  • #188
Hurkyl,
What is the number of the row which contains it?
First Please give me the number (the index if you like) of each prime number.


Please explain me again without professional notations the argument about 1/2.

Thank you.
 
  • #189
,
Come on, quote that proof, and explain the flaw you think there is in it. simple, couldn't be simpler?
Please understand this, the invariant self-similarity of a fractal does not depend on quantity, which means that any part of it (its local level) is equal to "all" of it (the global level of it).

So in a fractal finite and infinite are satisfied by the invariant structural property, and quantitative property is not important.

This is the deep meaning of cardinality in a fractal, not its size but its invariant self similarity.

If you understand this then you have a gate to my world.
 
Last edited:
  • #190
This thread is sooooo funny!

If I didn't know better, I'd say that Matt and Hurkyl take turns pretending to be Organic and posting nonsence just for fun.
 
  • #191
suyver,

You are invited to add your joke (please say some funny thing on fractal-like nanocrystals).
 
Last edited:
  • #192
and those counter claims state what? apart from that you don't seem to able to either understand the concept of proof or a simple request to demonstrate where you think the proof offered to you goes wrong?here is the proof based upon the array as written in your article the first column is on the right, then going to the left we number the columns accordingly.

the first column is 'based on 2^1' and goes 0101010101...

the second colummn reads, downwards, 00110011...

and so on for each column.

the r^th column starts with r zeroes.
then r ones then r zeroes...
Yes?

Let t be any row, the entry in the s'th place (reading right to left) is the entry from the s'th column.

whenever s >t this entry must be zero.

therefore any row is eventually all zeroes, and every element you enumerate in the power set is finite.

Read that argument carefully and don't dismiss it simply because it is me. as you keep telling people they must be open to new ideas, well, so must you.edit: also recall the worked examples i gave for the case of the first to 5th rows

so go through it and at each point tell me what you think is wrong with the deduction there.
you've now interleaved the confinite sets, but it's trivial to show that they are countable and contain only sets whose complement is finite. these two observations combined demonstrate your enumerated list of elements of the power sets contains none of the uncountable number of subsets of N which are infinite and whose complement is infinite.so quote all this and go through this step by step and write at each stage whether you agree or disagree, and if you disagree, why.you do not need to cite fractals or prabability, these have no bearing on this result. And just saying 'but they do, and you're wrong' only demonstrates your frailty of position.and i wish you were right suyver - i don't know why i spend so much intellectual energy on this topic.

a goood thing to note is that organic never posts in other people's threads unless it is to tell them about how his theory applies there. surely if he cared and knew mathematics or physics he'd want to help other people too and answer their queries about maths?
 
Last edited:
  • #193
Originally posted by Organic
suyver,

You are invited to add your joke (please say some funny thing on fractal-like nanocrystals).

pass.
 
  • #195
Originally posted by Organic
Matt,

This is useless, you are one of the prisoners in "Plato's Allegory of the Cave" http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm .

And the name of your jailer is Cantor.

if the strength of your position is so evident, and you are this genius that you seem to purport to be why can you not respond to the simple request to go through the proof offered step by step and explain your thoughts about it.failing that present an explicit construction of the array you imply exists, and demonstrate that every element of the power set is enumerated.

define the bijection between the rows and N. I have offered you an example and you've ignored it.

explain why it is that you make these claims about the case for N based upon the cases for the finite sets without citing the axiom of infinity induction.

you are attempting to prove that mathematics is inconsistent, and thus you must do so from within mathematics, that is why i do not need to consider your assertions about fractals and probability. they are irrelevant to the discussion in hand as you've not proved that there is a problem within mathematical treatments of N that don't deal with them. moreoever, you have not defined fractals or probabilty without using the mathematics that you consider to be flawed.
 
  • #196
Matt,

My allegory to you:

Matt: “Define a cat”.

Organic: Taking a cat and put it in front of Matt, then says “here is a cat”.

Matt: “No, define a cat”.

Organic: “Matt, it is in front of you”.

Matt: “You don’t understand, define a cat”.

Organic: ”what is define?”.

Matt: “Take a knife cut the cat to pieces and define each piece by putting it back to its place”.

Organic: ”But then you have no alive cat but pieces of flash. For me a cat is first of all alive thing in a one organic piece”.

Matt: “life is not important, definition is important, define a cat”.
 
Last edited:
  • #197
i didn't think you liked allegories.ok, put in front of me the array you claim has countably many rows that enumerate the power set of N.

Explain the rule for generating it. You say it must have a certain property by construction, what is the construction?

explain how you are bijecting to N, explain why then you manage to ignore the fact that that implies it does not enumerate the power set. remember you are only allowed to use my mathematics because that is what you are claiming is incomplete and cannot handle infinity.

Putting a cat in front of me doesn't define a cat - it gives me an example of a cat. If it were an abyssinian, would I then have to only accept that abyssinians were cats, and that, say, a siamese weren't a cat because it doesn't look like an abysinian? Now take the proof of mine and carefully go through it and explain where it is wrong.

i've done that for you - you're argument is wrong because you're basing *assumptions* about it on the finite case, that are meaningless in the infinite.
 
  • #198
Matt,

You don't know what is infinity, no more no less.


When you know it then and only then we shall communicate.


Bye.
 
Last edited:
  • #199
so you can't find a flaw in the proof then?

or can't you explain how to generate this infinite array?

which of all the observations on the inadequacy of your mathematics is causing you the most concern?

or all of the above?
 
  • #200
And the jury declares Matt Grime the winner!
The crowd goes wild!
 
Back
Top