Groups
Groups
Sign in
Groups
Groups
True But Unproven - the Collatz Conjecture
Conversations
About
Send feedback
Help
Max. Power of 2 and number of Odd integers in the loop
9 views
Skip to first unread message
roupam
unread,
Jun 3, 2009, 5:40:46 AM
6/3/09
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to True But Unproven - the Collatz Conjecture
I have found, that if there exists a loop, then if
n = number of odd integers in the loop
k = maximum power of 2 that divides a number in the loop
then, the following conclusions hold...
for positive integers
k <= n+1
for negative integers
k < n log3//log2 - n + 1
Consider the negative loop starting with
-17 -50 -25 -74 -37 -110 -55 -164 -82 -41 -122 -61 -182 -91 -272 -136
-68 -34 and then back to -17
Here...
n = 7
k = 4
4 < 7 * log3/log2 -7 + 1 = 5.09...
roupam
unread,
Jun 3, 2009, 6:46:30 AM
6/3/09
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to True But Unproven - the Collatz Conjecture
it doesnt mean that opposite is true...
jillbones
unread,
Jun 4, 2009, 6:03:24 PM
6/4/09
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to True But Unproven - the Collatz Conjecture
Works for 1, 4, 2, 1 anyway.
Mensanator
unread,
Jun 4, 2009, 6:14:57 PM
6/4/09
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to True But Unproven - the Collatz Conjecture
On Jun 4, 5:03 pm, jillbones <
b92...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
> Works for 1, 4, 2, 1 anyway.
But *WHY* does it work?
> > 4 < 7 * log3/log2 -7 + 1 = 5.09...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
roupam ghosh
unread,
Jun 4, 2009, 10:57:00 PM
6/4/09
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to TrueBut...@googlegroups.com
> Works for 1, 4, 2, 1 anyway.
But *WHY* does it work?
I have a proof... but i'll recheck it and then post it here...
jillbones
unread,
Jun 5, 2009, 5:16:35 PM
6/5/09
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to True But Unproven - the Collatz Conjecture
On Jun 3, 2:40 am, roupam <
roupam.gh...@gmail.com
> wrote:
Suppose that the first (n-1)= i numbers
1) O_(k+1) = (3*O_k + 1)/2. Then,
2) O_i ~ O_1 * 1.5^(i).
To complete the loop;
3) O_n = O_1 = (3*O_i + 1)/(2^k)
IMMHO, this will give the maximum possible
value for 'k'.
Bill J
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages