Editing Talk:710: Collatz Conjecture

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 5: Line 5:
 
::: It's pretty obvious the person you replied to has a head for mathematics. If you really think this is at all similar to the Goatee Guy from [[675: Revolutionary]], then you are sorely mistaken. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.84|172.68.59.84]] 13:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 
::: It's pretty obvious the person you replied to has a head for mathematics. If you really think this is at all similar to the Goatee Guy from [[675: Revolutionary]], then you are sorely mistaken. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.84|172.68.59.84]] 13:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 
:: It seems way too general to be much more than "asked," and I am sure that it has been addressed in its simpler forms. In any case, there is enough amateur, recreational, and serious mathematical literature on it to find out that there are indeed two failure cases: a starting Collatz number results in an infinitely increasing sequence, or a loop exists apart from the 4-2-1 loop. (Curiously enough, some loops exist when negative numbers are allowed.) Stuff like this and Goldbach made me realize just how hard simple things can get. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 
:: It seems way too general to be much more than "asked," and I am sure that it has been addressed in its simpler forms. In any case, there is enough amateur, recreational, and serious mathematical literature on it to find out that there are indeed two failure cases: a starting Collatz number results in an infinitely increasing sequence, or a loop exists apart from the 4-2-1 loop. (Curiously enough, some loops exist when negative numbers are allowed.) Stuff like this and Goldbach made me realize just how hard simple things can get. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
βˆ’
:: A way to ask if the trajectory eventually reach 1 is to ask if the number is increasing or decreasing. If it is decreasing, it will eventually his a number already confirmed earlier to be on the trajectory. Whenever (n*3 + 1) is applied, the result is always even, and must be divided by two. But (n*3 + 1) / 2 > n. So the value will increase unless it hit a positive value more often than every other time. If it hit even 2 out of 3 times, the value decrease as (n*3 + 1) / (2*2) < n for all values of n > 1.
+
 
βˆ’
::The show can go on until it eventually hit a number m for which it is true that m = 2^x for some positive integer x. This value will take it all the way to the bottom. So the way the conjecture can be untrue is if some kind of loop exist, which either blow up the value towards infinity without ever hitting a 2^x number, or just forms a loop which bring it back to previous values. Again this can only be true if no 2^x number is ever reached.  [[User:MigB|MigB]] ([[User talk:MigB|talk]]) 11:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 
  
 
Just for fun, here's 710's Collatz Trajectory.  
 
Just for fun, here's 710's Collatz Trajectory.  

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: