Bruckman's published proof

[The Passer-by]

Hail ! May I intrude & ask if anyone among the leader and participants
herein have actually been able to see Paul Bruckner's (alleged) proof
published in an (obscure, still international) journal :

<http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/
content~content=a786449268~db=all~order=page>

Cf. also discussion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Collatz_conjecture>,
where Mensanator wrote somewhat imprudently imvho :

"I can tell you *without even reading it* what the problem with it
is.... It will be another non sequitur fallacy just like all the
rest."

I'm surprised Google nor 'Google groups' (usenet) find anything about
that paper, except the /abstract/ at the frist link above...

Regards,

--
The Passer-by

[Mensanator]

On Apr 13, 12:12�pm, The Passer-by
<no.m...@dyn-212-83-147-25.ppp.tiscali.fr> wrote:

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, but I was
depending on Google Groups to alert me when
new posts arrived. This one slipped in under
the radar.

> Hail ! May I intrude & ask if anyone among the leader and participants
> herein have actually been able to see Paul Bruckner's (alleged) proof
> published in an (obscure, still international) journal :
>
> <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/
> content~content=a786449268~db=all~order=page>

I've seen it. Someone sent me jpg's of the journal pages.

Also, check the discussion on Wikipedia. Apparently,
Lagarias was not impressed by the "proof".

>
> Cf. also discussion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Talk:Collatz_conjecture>,
> where Mensanator wrote somewhat imprudently imvho :
>
> "I can tell you *without even reading it* what the problem with it
> is.... It will be another non sequitur fallacy just like all the
> rest."

Well, you might say that too if you studied
the work of Ken Conrow, Alan Tyte and Peter Schorer
to name a few. Very often, these guys have a premise
that's true, it's just that the proof of Collatz
doesn't follow from it (because the premise remains
true even when the conjecture is known to be false).

The only thing imprudent about that statement is
giving Bruckman the benefit of doubt as to whether
he's working from a true premise.

>
> I'm surprised Google nor 'Google groups' (usenet) find anything about
> that paper, except the /abstract/ at the frist link above...

Well, the journal is trying to squeeze $28 out
of you for the privelege of reading that crap.
So you're not going to see anything on the web
except the abstract.

Unless someone photographs and e-mails the pages.

Just like a spy movie!

>
> Regards,
>
> --
> The Passer-by