I had something similar in mind: starting with 1, can you generate all the naturals using just n' = 2n and n' = (2n+1)/3 ? I'll admit I haven't thought about this all that much, though. I like math, but it's not the main focus of my studies. Cool. I don't know much about primes, though. Good luck with your conjecture (and thanks for reminding me of a way to spend (waste?) my summer...). By the way, there's a way less useful $100 problem I've also tried (I think it was proposed by Martin Gardner): Can you find a 3x3 magic square consisting of only square numbers? I assume in the original statement of the problem, no number could appear in the square more than once and 0 wasn't allowed.
It's one of those problems that a lot of people (like myself) will spend countless hours on because the answer is so obvious, but no one can prove it. You hit a line of reasoning that sounds perfect... until 2 hours later you realize you hit a dead end.
Heh, I know the feeling. In highschool I would always prefer spending 6 hours on some math or physics problem (even if I was getting nowhere) than 1 hour doing an English essay.
Sing on oh ye of great faith. You are among the few who could see the reality of nature if you would but open your eyes.
Warren Thank You for your comment, where or how can name calling help anything? Personal attacks on my friend Vern, are not nice or necessary. My math may need some help I agree. Is it so bad to use the imagination where Science has no answer? Is this not a starting point for investigation? If you have any evidence why the vacuum of space can not form a vortex and create positive and negative pressure. Then please share this proof. I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. JQ
That from one of Einstein's early papers.. Perhaps our friend Warren would restrict the search for truth to only include those whose faith prevents them from finding it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, yeah -- all of us real scientists are just so closed-minded we can't see the truth in your nonsense. How many thousands of times have I heard that one from crackpots peddling thousands of different ridiculous presumptions? You think you're so clever though, don't you? Surely you can do better than that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Warren
I'm not so clever Warren; I'm just sad that you close your mind to all but the mainstream view. You are the clever one. I'm just sad that you haven't applied your great intellect to solve the problem left by this guy. If you would just own up to the fact that QM needs its final irreducible constituent to move at the speed of light, you could solve that problem.
Who said my mind was closed to all but the "mainstream" view, anyway? Surely I didn't. That wouldn't be scientific. On the other hand, entertaining Starman's wild fantasies would not be scientific, either. I'm afraid that viable scientific theories don't begin with symbols and constants strung together haphazardly, with dimensions that don't even agree. Children and morons play such games, not intellectual giants. Starman doesn't have the faintest clue about the theories he's attempting to trump, and it's both obvious and sad. - Warren
Relevent or not... but wasn't momentum defined? Thus starting Newtonian physics? From there you can derive a handful of equations (like force, work, energy, ect.).
chroot; you've chrooted yourself into the mainstream jail. Allow yourself to access reality from its main root, and you will achieve great things. See, now you will know what I mean by that; no one else reading this thread will. As for Starman; the thing I see is that he stumbled upon the one essential thing needed that the mainstream view is missing. Everything else may be wrong. But I wouldn't want to deprive anyone of the excitement of discovery when a great puzzle is solved in their mind. That one essential thing that Starman found is that So I thought he might deserve the feeling of discovery.
Unless I missed a massive event, there is no $1 million dollars for solving the 3n+1 problem (nor would I expect there ever will be).
Ok. I'd heard it was, but this was several months ago - I might have it confused with the Reimann hypothesis.
Vern I am still working this thing out and I think about it every minute of every day. I hope to have my first refinement within a weeks time. JQ
I'll be looking for your refinments. I'm tinkering with a new Web Log that has a forum. I've dedicated one whole catagory in the forum to Theory Development. Feel free to use it.
