« first day (3680 days earlier)      last day (1112 days later) » 

 
7 hours later…
07:17
0
Q: The Collatz Conjecture function should induce a collection of Grothendieck groups, one for each $n \in \Bbb{Z}$ or $\Bbb{N}$. Their properties?

PenAndPaperMathematicsThis question is about the Collatz conjecture. Let $\Bbb{N}$ include $0$. The Collatz conjecture function is given by: $$ f: \Bbb{N} \to \Bbb{N}, \\ f(n) = \begin{cases} \dfrac{n}{2}, \text{ if } n = 0 \pmod 2,\\ \dfrac{3n + 1}{2}, \text{ if } n = 1\pmod 2 \text{ and } n \gt 1\\ \end{cases} $$ N...

 
1 hour later…
08:34
I am confused about the comment to the answer here : Do Goedel's results not imply that ZF cannot be proven to be consistent ?
 
2 hours later…
10:58
CD - answer does not adress the question
 
3 hours later…
13:43
This does not seem to be useful. Is this elementary proof correct‭ - 2021-09-07 15:01:23Z
14:28
C1, C2, C3, C4
15:36
@user21820 I singled you out because having not seen any activity on my account for months, I suddenly experienced a cascade of downvotes shortly after posting in this room, and there was your name, and you've also called me crank on multiple occasions so I thought I'd give you the opportunity to educate me how to write a more suitable question in the future. That way maybe you won't have my bad content to moderate. Please don't misinterpret my matter of fact answer as anything other than that.
@samerivertwice Those downvotes were not me. I'm not the only one who thinks you are wasting your time and others' time on your attempts to solve Collatz, but I have been a bit more upfront in saying that. Don't mistake my straightforward honesty with you as correlated with any downvotes.
Thanks for clarifying that. We're all wasting our time. Some of us are wasting it looking up at the stars.
There is a difference between looking at stars and asking people to help to prove that the stars are sentient. Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing with you about the merits of your time spending, and everything beyond the fact that Math SE is not for tackling open problems is irrelevant to this room.
@ArcticChar Are you sure that C3 is off-topic? I thought math software was on-topic.
If one chooses "lack of context" or "unclear", it may be understandable, but all 4 close-voters chose "not about math as defined in the help center".
And the help center says:
> We welcome questions about: [...] Software that mathematicians use (except Mathematica, which has its own Stack Exchange site).
16:05
@user21820 your claim that MSE is not for tackling open problems is obviously false. There is an enormous body of excellent content pertaining to open problems. All that really matters is that there be a good question that somebody wants to answer., But I think you're taking us off topic again.
I was only here to discuss the merits of that closed question. I hoped you would help me write better questions but either you can't justify your actions because the question was fine or you can but are unwilling to help me.
I think that caveat for mathematica should extend to all reasonably supported softwares. Coming here for software advice I think is a bit of a relic of the past when they didn't have convenient platforms for supporting questions about their software. Now it seems most have sufficient support infrastructure...
@samerivertwice Firstly, "MSE is not for tackling open problems is obviously false" is not so obvious as stated. In the past we have definitely rejected them when the open problem is asked as a question, e.g. [this](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9977/29335). I'd think that would be by definition research level, and even on mathoverflow [they do not seem to accept such posts](https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/9879/29335).
On the other hand, I don't know what type of posts you two are actually discussing, and I could see some content about "why doesn't this approach work" being f
The trick is in defining some policy that lets the curious explore their ideas without enabling industrious cranks.
@rschwieb open problems were discussed before and my understanding is that the comunity finds it acceptable for users to ask good mathematical questions, which may pertain to some aspect of an open problem.
The content we're discussing has nothing to do with open problems. I was learning about Teichmuller representatives some time ago and got a number of really helpful pointers when working out an example. math.stackexchange.com/questions/4125946
16:21
@samerivertwice I guess it bears repeating that "there exists a thing like the thing i want" isn't a complete justification for any given post, although yes it is useful to know what precedents there are. At least one has to be very careful when asking regarding an open problem to propose something that is probably answerable.
I just came here to understand where I went wrong on that question because the comments and answers were massively useful for me and I don't want to write bad questions that are unsuitable for the site.
Taking a look...
@samerivertwice Didn't see anything wrong with it. Thanks for the link. Always helps to be concrete.
16:44
@samerivertwice: You wrote:
> it converges to some number which can only really be thought of as a 4th root of unity, and which is different to a complex 4th root of unity in the sense that you could add any choice of complex 4th root to Z5 and it remain independent from w(2)
This is just nonsense.
Enough; I don't want to argue anymore, because you know very well that you have been repeatedly asking about these topics only because you have some belief that it is relevant to Collatz.
17:07
@user21820 A user's own attempt at answering their own question, included for context, will often be wrong, without that making the question invalid. However on this occasion I think Torsten knows a good bit more than you about the topic and he said it was all correct. If you don't understand the topic you certainly shouldn't be voting to close - please leave the voting to somebody competent to do so in the future.
17:18
@samerivertwice He did NOT say it was all correct. It's ridiculous that you claim you want my feedback but you give me this kind of nonsense.
The one thing where you still seem to think wrongly is about how it differs from a complex $4$th root of unity. It differs because $\mathbb Z_5$ is not naturally contained in $\mathbb C$, so it does not even make sense to ask if they are "different", they just live in different worlds. In particular, you cannot "add any choice of complex $4$th root to $\mathbb Z_5$". If your algebraic structure is meant to embed into a field, there would be no space for it anyway, since there can only be four $4$-th roots of unity in any field, and there are four of them in $\mathbb Z_5$ already. — Torsten Schoeneberg May 3 '21 at 19:31
@user21820 Sorry I let my frustration get the better of me. I think it is friendlier to other users to say "I do not follow" than to come straight out with "this is nonsense" as an opening gambit.
@user21820 Without looking at the question: questions about software which are mathematical in nature are on-topic; questions which come down to implementation are off-topic (roughly speaking).
If the question could / should be answered by a user manual, it is probably off-topic.
Now that I have looked at the question, I would argue that, in general, recommendations are off-topic for any number of reasons: seeking personal advice, not about math, opinion based, etc.
@samerivertwice "If you don't understand the topic you certainly shouldn't be voting to close..." No. You are incorrect. One needn't be intimately familiar with the underlying mathematics in order to make a judgement about the suitability of a question for Math SE.
@XanderHenderson Ah okay that distinction (arbitrary recommendation vs something with mathematical content) makes sense.
@user21820 Gun to my head, I would have closed that question as "opinion based". :D
This one, on the other hand...: math.stackexchange.com/q/4377200/468350
RT[F]M
17:32
@XanderHenderson Gun to my head, I would say have it any way you like. My head is far more important than Math SE.
@samerivertwice I'm straightforward. Sorry if it felt unfriendly, but I have absolutely no malice or grudge against you.
"The best software" is certainly opinion-based. If the question would be which software can do it at all and how, this would be something else.
@Peter Yea, that's why I wouldn't have been surprised if the close-votes were that. I was surprised that they were all "not about math"...
 
2 hours later…
19:33
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
C7, C8, C9.
19:54
0
Q: What is the minimum amount of "data" needed to invert the Collatz function?

PenAndPaperMathematicsCurrently, iterates $f^i(\cdot)$ of the Collatz 3n+1 function form a monoid. Was wanting to do $f^{-i}(\cdot)$ but as you can imagine that is impossible because from for example $f(x) = f(y) = \dfrac{3x + 1}{2} = \dfrac{y}{2}$ we can't track whether it was the $x$ or the $y$ that when $f$ was ap...

20:46
0
Q: How do you find all integer solutions to an equation in the form $b^2-c=a^2$, And what is the best known algorithm for it?

Colonizor48I'm trying to see if I can find a fast factoring algorithm. I probably will not succeed, but it's a good exercise to at least try to find one with your current knowledge and to then find where it falls apart. I have noticed that you can easily use the quadratic formula to factor any given quadrat...

 
2 hours later…
22:55
0
Q: Ringed quasigroup simplifies the form of the Collatz conjecture function to $g(x) = 3x + 1$.

PenAndPaperMathematicsThe odd integers and $0$ form a ringed quasigroup. Clearly, since any $2^ix \in \Bbb{Z}$ when passed into the Collatz function $f$ will iterate down to $f(x)$ since the function works first by dividing out $2$ if the number is even. Thus, it's clear that the Collatz conjecture is equivalent to $f...


« first day (3680 days earlier)      last day (1112 days later) »