Re: Collatz conjecture question

On 03/24/2025 08:54 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 03/24/2025 01:38 AM, efji wrote:

Le 24/03/2025 à 02:47, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

On 03/23/2025 05:01 PM, efji wrote:

Le 23/03/2025 à 23:40, Ross Finlayson a écrit :

There are models of integers with and without Szmeredi's theorem,
it's _independent_ usual laws of small numbers since there are
multiple models of integers, and of course a neat, simple, direct
logical argument that there's no standard model of integers,
only fragments and extensions.

>
In summary: we have Hachel with his dumb "complex numbers", now an
inventor of "multiple models of integers". Let's just find some genius
of "new real numbers" and we could form a team in the psychiatric
hospital :)
>
BTW, I just found the homepage of a unfortunate guy named "Ross
Finlayson". He his forced to have the following disclaimer: "I am not
the "Ross A. Finlayson" who posts prolifically to the "sci.math" and
"sci.space.policy" newsgroups. We’re not related".
>
Imagine a real person named "Richard Hachel" :(
>

>
Yeah, it's been like that since about 20 years.
It's one of the oldest unchanged pages still on the Internet.
>
Wow, you sound just like "infinite foul toot J.G.".
>
>
Finlay Mor was killed in the 14'th century at
the Battle of Pinkie by a cannonball.
>
Somewhere, in Scot-land, there's a
Lone Highlander's Grave.
>
I don't know that we're related, ....
>
>
>
Dig a little deeper and start finding my
tens and tens of thousands of posts.
>
And a long, long line.
>
>
>
Hachel's just talking about iterating roots,
it's just a thing, whereas my talk about
complex numbers is about gaps in the analyticity
of the usual association of the Argand diagram,
and about how division is under-defined, and,
there are others, and about my original analysis
with the "identity dimension" the envelope of
the integral equations of d'Alembert, Clairaut,
and the linear fractional equation.
>
Which is very close to diffraction,
a fraction of differences.
>
>
Anyways, indeed it is so that there's reasoning
why Russell's retro-thesis, is, generously, an
unjustified stipulation, and, is, a bit more directly,
justified against.
>
>
>
Tens and tens of thousands of essays in mathematics,
logic, and physics, in the short essay form.
>
>
Also there are thousands and thousands of volumes
in my library, or, a ton of books.
>
>
So anyways, do you know of Mirimanoff and his role
in the influences of the development of ZF set theory?
Have you read Cohen's on the independence of CH?
>
Do you have a clue? (Without asking your phone, ....)
>
Have you ever said the word "metaphysics" or strung
together "point at infinity"?
>
>
Others have, ....
>
>

>
Two distinct pathologies. Hachel is struggling against himself about
basic and elementary notions. You are more a "name dropping guy",
chaining savant words in a random way. I suggest giving you the same
room in the psychiatric hospital. He could teach you how
a=b =/=> a^2=b^2, and you could teach him a lot of strange words whose
definition is far above your head but make you feel that your are the
smartest guy on earth. Who will win between you two ?
>
>

>
I applied to get into a psychiatric hospital one time,
they said I was going to be a "psych tech 4".
>
Didn't work out, ....
>
>
Are you saying that there's anything incorrect that I've written?
>
>
Do you know the difference between right and wrong in these matters?
>
>
Anyways you're a flaming troll and it's not saying much.
>
>
>

"Name-Dropping" is how researchers refer to _schools_ of men,
or women in an egalitarian manner, humans of the academic sort,
that given _names_ over the time-line of history and bibliography
is how people refer to collections of concepts or the _schools_
of these people.
So, for people who know these people these _schools_ of men,
it can mean a lot, about the developments and the surrounds,
since we're talking about the foundations and developments of
the mathematics, which since Boyer notes Pythagoras coined as
words, "mathematics" and "philosophy", there's that when I
say "Russell is a flaky hypocrite" it reflects directly on
his ventured mathematical opinion.
I like DesCartes, I feel like he's my cousin. Yet, if I didn't
know about Suarez and Arnauld and Mersenne, then, it wouldn't
feel quite as connected to our canon, dogma, and doctrine,
for a history and historiography of mathematics.
Anyways I am pretty much never wrong in these matters.
Also I use strong reasoning to show anything else may be.