Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions
yes: notation used in proof must be understood by the reader
m (→Proof vs. Formal Verification: better link formatting) |
(yes: notation used in proof must be understood by the reader) |
||
Line 130:
::::::::::::::::: I don't think that [[User:Rdm|Rdm]] believes in such proof of GC, he just does't believe in presented proofs for the task. — [[User:Ht|Ht]] 07:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
::: That's not to far from one of my issues here, which is that a proof is only valid for a person if the person understands its notation. This, seemed to be the basis for the objections to my earlier implementation, before the task was changed. (A second set of issues has to do with the changes introduced a couple days ago.) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 09:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
::: It's easy to show that my approach here does not handle the Collatz conjecture. Consider the values 1 and 3. Their Collatz sequences have different lengths. Nothing in my approach deals with these sequence lengths.
| |||