Yeah, just went through this whole same line of evasion. Alright, the Collatz conjecture will never be “proved” in this restrictive sense—and neither will the Steve conjecture or the irrationality of √2—do we care? It may still be proved according to the ordinary meaning.
Look at other unsolved problems: - Goldbach: Can every even number of 1s be split into two prime clusters of 1s? - Twin Primes: Are there infinite pairs of prime clusters of 1s separated by two 1s? - Riemann: How are the prime clusters of 1s distributed?
For centuries, they resist. Why?
I think it would be much clearer to everyone if the OP said
Look at other unsolved problems: - Goldbach: Can every even number of 1s be split into two prime clusters of 1s? - Twin Primes: Are there infinite pairs of prime clusters of 1s separated by two 1s? - Riemann: How are the prime clusters of 1s distributed? - The claim that one odd number plus another odd number is always an even number: When we squash together two odd groups of 1s, do we get an even group of 1s? - The claim that √2 is irrational: Can 1s be divided by 1s, and squared, to get 1+1?
For centuries, they resist. Why?
I request that Alister Munday please make that change. It would save readers a lot of time and confusion … because the readers would immediately know not to waste their time reading on …
Yeah, just went through this whole same line of evasion. Alright, the Collatz conjecture will never be “proved” in this restrictive sense—and neither will the Steve conjecture or the irrationality of √2—do we care? It may still be proved according to the ordinary meaning.
Yeah it’s super-misleading that the post says:
I think it would be much clearer to everyone if the OP said
I request that Alister Munday please make that change. It would save readers a lot of time and confusion … because the readers would immediately know not to waste their time reading on …