# Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)

*From*: Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 07:52:22 GMT

Craig Feinstein wrote:

Let me try to answer you without refering you to my papers. You can

just look at what I posted above. The place in my argument above where

it would break down for the n+1 modification is:

"Notice that you cannot algebraically reduce this formula to

anything simpler than itself, so in order to know this formula for a

specific n and m, it is necessary to know the values of a_1,...,a_k in

the formula."

This statement only is true with respect to the 3n+1 function, not the

n+1 function modification, since it can be further reduced when m is

large enough to 1 or 2.

I hope this helps.

Your argument is missing:

A theorem showing the non-existence of an algebra in which the

formula is reducible, and

A theorem that rules out proving general statements about things

unless we can algebraically reduce them.

--

--Bryan

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Craig Feinstein

**References**:**Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Woeginger Gerhard

**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*tchow

**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Craig Feinstein

**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Woeginger Gerhard

**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Craig Feinstein

**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Woeginger Gerhard

**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)***From:*Craig Feinstein

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons** - Next by Date:
**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Complexity Theory for Simpletons (Collatz)** - Index(es):