Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #2 20090628 04:01:06
Re: Yet Another Number Trap[Jane had an attempted proof above this post] Why did the vector cross the road? It wanted to be normal. #3 20090628 05:01:05
Re: Yet Another Number TrapI was under the impression that this was unsolved: There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't, and those who can use induction. #4 20090628 06:55:49
Re: Yet Another Number TrapLast result I know for it is (Oliveira e Silva 2008) Last edited by bobbym (20090628 06:56:33) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #5 20090628 10:17:32
Re: Yet Another Number Trap
Let {x_n} be the sequence generated from your starting odd number. So x_1 = 3*x_0 + 1 and x_2 = (3*x_0 + 1)/2. Now in the case that x_2 is odd, we then have x_3 = (9*x_0 + 3)/2. But the thing here is that x_3 > x_0. If your M always turns out to be odd, then the sequence diverges to infinity. "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #6 20090628 10:20:37
Re: Yet Another Number Trap
But there is an upside to this: I feel confident in awarding you the longest proof ever of that fact for this problem. "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #7 20090628 11:28:31
Re: Yet Another Number Trap
Jane, please don't delete your posts after they have been replied to. It makes other people who are trying to follow this thread rather confused. "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #8 20090628 20:22:59
Re: Yet Another Number TrapThen please stop making pointless replies to my posts. I had already admitted that my hastily thoughtup proof was neither here nor there, so there was no point at all in commenting on it. Last edited by JaneFairfax (20090628 20:56:27) #9 20090629 01:40:32
Re: Yet Another Number TrapJane, mathsyperson posted:
I was explaining to him what was wrong. Don't be so embarrassed at making little mistakes. I used the quadratic equation wrong in my algebra final not more than 2 months ago. It happens. "In the real world, this would be a problem. But in mathematics, we can just define a place where this problem doesn't exist. So we'll go ahead and do that now..." #10 20090629 02:44:59
Re: Yet Another Number TrapSuch a mature and caring answer. Someone has a lot friends on this forum, hope that person comes to realize that. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #11 20090629 03:16:39
Re: Yet Another Number TrapOkay, thanks, Ricky. You are nice. You do not insult me for making a typo, unlike integer. Last edited by JaneFairfax (20090726 23:07:19) #12 20090720 12:02:08
Re: Yet Another Number TrapOn most forums, what you just posted would not be allowed. I'll be here at least once every month. XP 