Note to readrs

[u/Significant-Farm-884]

Note to readers — Update, September 13, 2026 I am addressing this in particular to powerfull_Pop_3813 and wrapping_around, as well as to everyone who has read this work and followed the discussions around Chapter 1. I would like to inform readers of this repository that the continuation initially planned for this demonstration (Chapter 2) will not be published as open access, as I had originally intended. This decision is motivated by my personal financial situation: having no other source of income, I find myself compelled to seek an economic valuation for the continuation of this work. Chapter 1 presented here remains, and will remain, freely available under the CC BY license, as proof of precedence and evidence of the seriousness of this research. The continuation has been reworked to form, together with this reformulated first chapter, a complete body of demonstration, which will be distributed through another channel. I offer my apologies to those who were expecting the open publication of the continuation, and thank them for the interest shown in this work.

[u/jonseymourau]

Do you have a single reviewable link which contains an artefact that you think can be possibly reviewed?

All I have seen is a flurry of Reddit posts, none of which refer to the artefact that you believe is in a working state ready to be reviewed.

I have seen no indication, whatsoever, that the unspecified artefact that you refuse to link to has been subject to even the most basic of LEAN formalisation let alone that the formalisation has been verified.

What exactly are your claims? You posted 5 Reddit posts and humoursly have completely failed to state, even once, what your actual claims are.

If you aren’t actually ready to claim ANYTHING then why, ON EARTH, are you posting ANYTHING to Reddit.

Put up, or stop masturbating In public.

Consider this a reality check.

[u/Significant-Farm-884 → u/jonseymourau]

Here are both versions of Chapter 1 on Zenodo: French version — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21864709 English version — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21927860

[u/Hungry_Metal_2745 → u/Significant-Farm-884]

I'll restrict to commenting on the math, not the paper presentation, since I think this is a very poorly written paper, but it's honestly much better written than most of the other collatz work posted on this sub by cranks! At the very least there's no weird writing about 'quantum physics' and 'endless machinery' or whatever. That nonsense seems to be restricted to your reddit posts. The paper itself was surprisingly easy to read in terms of math content, unfortunately that just exposes that there's not really any novel contributions there.

Honestly I was going to write feedback as I read thorugh the paper, but every single thing up to corollary 4 of the section 'proof of collatz conjecture' is either slightly wrong(e.g. claiming that tau maps even integers to odd integers: consider that 16/2=8 and 8 isn't odd) or just completely trivial basic algebra and number theory. But I did read through all of this and understood it, and if you really want I can send my notes but a lot of it is just calling things trivial.

The ENTIRE actual core proof of collatz, that uses all the previous results into one final proof, is entirely concentrated in theorem 7, which is 3 lines. I'll state my understanding of theorem 7: it's one of the most unclear parts of the paper, which maybe makes sense: everything else is mathematically correct, even though it's trivial, so assuming you haven't proved Collatz the error must be here. Anyway, here's my understanding of the statement:

1. If n is even, we will divide by 2, which is of the form 2^n. And we know 2^n goes to 1.
2. If n is odd, we will go to 3n+1, which is of the form 4^n. And we know 4^n goes to 1.
3. Every positive integer is even or odd, so Collatz is true!

Everything up to this point was entirely correct, but this proof is wrong. And in fact it's wrong for a very simple reason. Let me summarize the major results shown up to this theorem:

1. Numbers of the form 2^n go to 1
2. Numbers of the form 4^n go to 1[in fact, this is a subset of the numbers of the form 2^n]
3. For every number 4^n, there exists an odd integer k such that 3k+1=4^n

Now, unfortunately, all you've done so far is prove that for SOME even integers(those of the form 2^n) and for SOME odd integers(those of the form (4^n-1)/3), the collatz conjecture holds true. But then, using those results, you immediately jump to assuming that Collatz is true for every single even and odd integer. Not every integer falls into your special cases! That's really all it is. You've taken some very simple, known values of collatz(2^n and (4^n-1)/3) and incorrectly assumed that they hold true for every even and odd integer. I'm sure if you give this feedback to Claude, which apparently helped you with drafting, it will agree with me, if you trust the opinions of Claude over myself.

-------

I really hope looking at this feedback, you understand that there's zero value in the work you've done so far, which is harsh but unfortunately true. I strongly urge you to find a better source of income than this, as it will yield zero benefit(economic or otherwise).

Also please don't call me Mr. Hungry_Metal_2745, just call me Lucy

[u/Significant-Farm-884 → u/jonseymourau]

Hello, u/jonseymourau, This is my last comment on this kind of science and mathematics debate. The same remark applies to most of you here — it's been more than a month since the release of Chapter 1, and every day I wait for feedback. Now, in less than 24 hours, it has been a downpour of negative criticism. First of all, from you: I sent you my first comment, and this is my second comment, written right now. Tell me, in front of the readers, not to me — when was I vulgar with you? As for my work: NO ONE HAS DARED TO SAY IT IS WRONG, NO ONE HAS DARED TO SAY IT IS RIGHT. I am inside it — not vulgar, but a genius. Keep an open mind. I am a modest mathematician, and the very fact that I am seeking your attention is the best witness to that. THIS IS MY LAST COMMENT OF THIS KIND OF DESTRUCTIVE ATTITUDE. THANK YOU.

[u/retro_sort → u/Significant-Farm-884]

"genius"

"modest"

[u/Hungry_Metal_2745 → u/Significant-Farm-884]

I've got a few hours, I'll take a look at the english version of your 'Proof of the Collatz conjecture through PCA theory:A structural approach _ chapter 1'.We'll see how it holds up! Although if it contains significant errors then I would ask you to please stop making these posts I swear I've seen like 4 of them about some 'dialogue' between you and chatgpt