FengYuLing

189 posts

FengYuLing

FengYuLing

@FengTheory

Founder of Fengyuling Theory (FT) | LSG Originator. The universe is simple:Minimum Rules, Maximum Freedom. In the name of love, stay hopeful, and never give up.

Katılım Şubat 2016
52 Takip Edilen15 Takipçiler
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
On May 18, 2026, I discovered that I had been shadowbanned. No way to appeal this, I posted one final X post and decided to wait patiently for the shadowban to be lifted. May 28, 2026—The shadowban has become even more severe. What are you afraid of? @elonmusk
FengYuLing tweet mediaFengYuLing tweet mediaFengYuLing tweet mediaFengYuLing tweet media
English
0
0
0
22
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@JDHamkins @wtgowers Could the ω is a error like Gödel's ? Gödel's theorem, in essence, is an error that overlooks the partial order of mathematical transformations. My paper on this was rejected by "would not be accepted even if correct."I welcome your insights, Professors. x.com/FengTheory/sta…
FengYuLing@FengTheory

This is how the Journal of Symbolic Logic (JSL) responds to a challenge to Gödel: "Even assuming its correctness, this paper would not be accepted." Is it fear of truth? Academic corruption? Or bias against Chinese scholars? "Selectivity" overrides "correctness," logic is dead.

English
1
1
0
58
Joel David Hamkins
Joel David Hamkins@JDHamkins·
I have realized that the Collatz conjecture fails in the natural ring of ordinals...
English
22
11
201
30.2K
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
Editorial crisis at JSL: The Editor-in-Chief desk-rejected a foundational completion of Peano Arithmetic, stating: "even assuming its correctness, this paper would not be accepted." Full manuscript & raw evidence open-sourced for global audit: github.com/FengTheory/JSL…
FengYuLing tweet media
English
0
0
0
40
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
My posts debunking Gödel’s flaws have been completely shadowbanned on X. Even I cannot search them. Simultaneously, every single post exposing JSL’s editorial corruption was instantly wiped from search results. Why? Is truth now a banned word on X? @elonmusk
FengYuLing tweet media
English
0
0
1
43
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
《On the Irreversibility of Transformation Ordinals in Peano Arithmetic: A Topological Resolution of Gödel's Incompleteness Proposition》 Submitted to The Journal of Symbolic Logic(JSL) JSL:"Even assuming its correctness, this paper would not be accepted." x.com/FengTheory/sta…
FengYuLing@FengTheory

1 EN: Gödel's Incompleteness is a topological illusion. By introducing "Ordinal Irreversibility," self-referential paradoxes vanish. Math is complete. DOI.ORG/10.5281/zenodo…

English
0
0
0
57
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
This is how the Journal of Symbolic Logic (JSL) responds to a challenge to Gödel: "Even assuming its correctness, this paper would not be accepted." Is it fear of truth? Academic corruption? Or bias against Chinese scholars? "Selectivity" overrides "correctness," logic is dead.
FengYuLing tweet media
English
2
0
0
217
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
"Even assuming its correctness, this paper would not be accepted." Incredible! The behavior of 《Symbolic Logic》 is completely illogical. x.com/FengTheory/sta…
FengYuLing@FengTheory

This is how the Journal of Symbolic Logic (JSL) responds to a challenge to Gödel: "Even assuming its correctness, this paper would not be accepted." Is it fear of truth? Academic corruption? Or bias against Chinese scholars? "Selectivity" overrides "correctness," logic is dead.

English
0
0
0
32
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
5 This work, derived from FT Physics, corrects a core error in logic. It is the vital foundation for humanity to move from void and uncertainty toward a reality of predictability. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18806573 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18273116 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.18467211
English
1
0
0
68
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
1 EN: Gödel's Incompleteness is a topological illusion. By introducing "Ordinal Irreversibility," self-referential paradoxes vanish. Math is complete. DOI.ORG/10.5281/zenodo…
FengYuLing tweet media
Català
1
0
1
322
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@wtgowers Mr. Gowers, AI cannot solve hard problems like the Collatz conjecture. But I can. There is something even more stunning: I have corrected an error in Gödel's—a correction that upends the existing mathematical paradigm. This is something AI could never do. x.com/FengTheory/sta…
FengYuLing@FengTheory

1 EN: Gödel's Incompleteness is a topological illusion. By introducing "Ordinal Irreversibility," self-referential paradoxes vanish. Math is complete. DOI.ORG/10.5281/zenodo…

English
0
0
0
65
Timothy Gowers @wtgowers
Timothy Gowers @wtgowers@wtgowers·
I've recently got in on the act of getting AI to solve open problems in mathematics. More precisely, I gave some questions asked by Melvyn Nathanson to ChatGPT 5.5 Pro, to which I have been given access, and it answered them. 🧵
English
75
379
2K
644.3K
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 Thank you, my friend! You're right—I couldn't care less about any of that; I only care about logic and truth. In fact, regarding the bonus you mentioned—that's the first I've ever heard of it! I certainly don't care about any bonus.😀 Bye👋🏽
English
0
0
1
52
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Mais tu t’en fout de ça Feng, ce sont des distractions. Reste concentré sur le lemme et sur les maths. Et si tu finis par verrouiller Collatz, n’oublie pas de me citer… ainsi que ma moitié du million de dollars 😉 Bye Feng 👋🏽
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
2
95
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@wtgowers Silence in the face of a Deterministic Proof (April 28, DOI: 19847203) is not dignity; it is intellectual cowardice. As a Fields Medalist, are you truly unable to distinguish between a probabilistic guess and a logical settlement? Or is the "Advanced AI" you rely 1/2
FengYuLing tweet media
English
2
0
0
276
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 No, I haven't received any feedback from Mr.Gowers either in opposition nor in support. All I observed was that he suddenly enabled comment moderation on my posts. I am simply stating the facts. As for my account being banned immediately after I registered Reddit-that is a fact
English
1
0
0
98
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Feng, le problème n’a jamais été ton intuition. Le problème est que tu sembles vivre chaque objection comme une incompréhension ou une attaque, alors qu’une vraie collaboration scientifique fonctionne justement par friction critique. Tu n'es pas au-dessus des autres Feng
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
88
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 Obviously, you realize that I am not employing traditional probabilistic methods. There is no need for you to argue with me. Even Grok believes my approach shows great promise. You, however, do not seem to share that view. And I believe you simply haven't understood it.
English
1
0
0
74
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Feng, tu es quelqu’un d’intelligent. Ne gâche pas tout : mets-toi au travail, va chercher le lemme manquant et reste humble. Ton idée est intéressante. Va au bout proprement, sans parano ni posture. L’humilité précède parfois les vraies victoires. Bon courage.
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
90
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 I suspect you might be treating {2^k} as the endpoint of the orbits in my calculations. I must specifically remind you: the endpoint of every orbit is 1.
English
0
0
0
24
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Feng, je comprends ton idée : la dynamique imposerait à chaque orbite une pente de contraction. Mais c’est ce que Collatz exige de démontrer, pas juste d’affirmer. Le problème n’est pas de nommer cette pente “invariante”, mais de prouver qu’elle vaut pour toute orbite
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
57
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 I have experienced firsthand the discrimination of journals and platforms against Chinese scholars. But do not mistake my kindness. I believe you truly fail to understand the fundamental difference between "structural invariance" and "probabilistic prediction".
English
2
0
0
76
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Feng, ne deviens pas insultant. Je comprends mieux que toi ton propre modèle & surtout ses limites actuelles. Le point n’a jamais été “probabiliste” vs “structurel”. Donne juste le lemme local indépendant garantissant ton invariant sur toute orbite,sans supposer l’absorption
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
82
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 I tried to post on Reddit, but my account was immediately locked. I also sought endorsement for arXiv, but no one was willing to help. Clearly, the academic system's filters, like your 'probabilistic mindset,' are unable to recognize original logic. 🤣 Could you help me?
English
1
0
0
43
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Feng, mes objections semble te pousser progressivement du statistique vers le structurel/phénoménologique. Mais le point visé ne bouge pas : le lemme local indépendant manque toujours. Tu devrais poster ça sur sur Reddit r/Collatz pour obtenir plus de retours techniques.
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
2
0
0
77
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 Exactly. Newton did not need to calculate every falling object; he discovered the underlying Rule. Me too: Every orbit is fixed and determinate, not random; therefore, all must strictly adhere to the same structural Rule.Every orbit possesses an inherent contraction trend.
English
1
0
0
61
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Justement Feng 😄 Newton n’a pas “déduit” la gravité à partir d’objets déjà tombés au sol. La loi était définie indépendamment des trajectoires particulières C’est précisément ce lemme indépendant qu’on te demande encore ici.Les analogies de physique théorique sont prématurées
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
58
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 Clearly, you didn't understand.😀 By assuming the existence of divergent trajectories, you are effectively assuming that a specific heavy object is immune to the force of gravity. But, I have directly derived Newton's formula and now tell you: it is impossible to violate it.
English
1
0
0
52
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Ravi de voir que tu modifie et corrige ton cadre en temps réel à partir des objections, Feng 😄 Le PDF original parlait surtout de drift statistique et de “probability 1” ; maintenant tu affirmes un invariant déterministe orbite par orbite. Ce nouveau lemme manque toujours.
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
56
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 An orbit is not a probability distribution; it is a deterministic structure. I do not concern myself with how an orbit evolves or with its probabilities. Every single orbit, by its very existence, is absolutely bound by the rule of <-0.2877. There are no exceptions.
English
1
0
0
46
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Prenons le problème autrement : montre, pour tout n et tout préfixe fini d’orbite, que le gradient cumulé reste < −0.2877 sans supposer que l’orbite atteint {2ᵏ}. Si tu ne peux le montrer qu’après absorption, alors G<0 dépend déjà de la convergence. Donne-moi ce lemme précis
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
54
FengYuLing
FengYuLing@FengTheory·
@Shayn_93 I am not calculating probability; I am proving that the mathematical structure dictates that any orbit, regardless of length, must adhere to the rule of <-0.2877. Therefore, divergence is impossible and exceptions cannot exist.
English
1
0
0
43
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ
𝕊ℍ𝔸𝕐ℕ@Shayn_93·
@FengTheory Tu remplaces simplement “probabilité” par “nécessité logique”, mais le verrou manquant reste le même : il faut démontrer indépendamment que G<0 pour toute trajectoire possible, sans supposer déjà l’absorption dans {2ᵏ} puis 1.
Pantin, France 🇫🇷 Français
1
0
0
43

Keşfet

@elonmusk @JDHamkins @wtgowers @Shayn_93 @BarackObama @taylorswift13 @cristiano @BillGates