3n+1

[Anonymous No.3971581]

Greet you /sci

If you had finally somehow proved the "3n+1" conjecture, what would you do?

[Anonymous No.3971589]

There was a $$ prize for proving Collatz' right? If so, claim it

[Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw No.3971619]

Umm, go to the math department, ask some professor about publishing it, publish it. (Publishing out of nowhere on your own won't work I guess.)

[Anonymous No.3971648]

Can you explain the problem to me, please?

[Anonymous No.3971652]

1. Memorize it
2. Destroy any proof.
3. Wait.
4. Some mathematician mentions it in conversation.
5. Pretend to not know what it is as he explains it
6. Say "oh, well that seems obvious"
7. Present the proof in front of a crowd
8. Get pussy. Get laid

[Anonymous No.3971647]

>>3971619
>have your prof steal your idea

[Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw No.3971663]

>>3971648
Take any positive integer. Now, apply the following algorithm:
- If it's an even number, divide it by 2.
- If it's an uneven number, multiply it by 3 and add 1 ("3n+1").
You now repeat that. The conjecture now says that for any positive n, you'll always end up at 1 eventually.

[Anonymous No.3971667]

>>3971648
Define the iteration <span class="math">n \rightarrow \frac{n}{2}[/spoiler] for even <span class="math">n[/spoiler] or <span class="math">n \rightarrow 3n+1[/spoiler] for odd <span class="math">n[/spoiler]. Prove every positive integer eventually reaches 1.

[Anonymous No.3971670]

>>3971663
I did a few numbers in my head, seems legit, but how are you supposed to "prove" it?

[Anonymous No.3971678]

>>3971670
if we knew that we would have done it already, jesus fucking christ

[Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw No.3971679]

>>3971670 but how are you supposed to "prove" it?
It's still an open problem, nobody knows how to prove it.

[Anonymous No.3971680]

>>3971670
Good question. Derp!

[Anonymous No.3971687]

>>3971670
Just prove that you can generate any natural number by successive multiplications of 2 and divisions of 3.

Honestly its too simple. Just like if you have a torus and draw a line with an irrational slope across it the line will never intersect itself and simply continue to become denser on the torus as it loops around to infinity.

[Anonymous No.3971686]

>>3971663
Well that's obvious. Every even positive integer is divisible by 2, so of course you'll always end up with 2. Then 2/2=1.
>3n+1 for negatives is obvious, too. Take any negative integer and add 1 to it, and you will get a positive integer. Multiplying it by 3 beforehand is just a red herring. Once you get your positive integer, just start dividing, you'll get 2 eventually, and 2/2=1.
This shit is stupid. Please tell me I misunderstood, because I fail to see how this is so hard to prove.

[Anonymous No.3971689]

>>3971670
induction

[Sheikah !NKCqu160yw No.3971696]

>>3971686

>Well that's obvious. Every even positive integer is divisible by 2, so of course you'll always end up with 2. Then 2/2=1.

Better think about that logic again!

[Anonymous No.3971697]

My c program show that it worked up to 8000000.
8000000==infinity

Thus, it's proven. QED

Fields Medal Please!

[Anonymous No.3971701]

>>3971689
yes, induction. It works every time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borwein_integral

[Anonymous No.3971703]

>>3971686

>Every even positive integer is divisible by 2, so of course you'll always end up with 2. Then 2/2=1.

No, because you'll get an odd number sometimes. Then you multiply that by 3 and get a higher number, so you're further away from one.

[Anonymous No.3971704]

>>3971696
Thanks, now I understand.

[Sheikah !NKCqu160yw No.3971705]

>>3971689

I remember learning about induction for the first time in high-school, and then attempting to prove everything via induction.

[Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw No.3971707]

>>3971701
Wow, thanks! Until now, I called the "fancy example from the Mathematica help file for sinc" integral. It's got another name, yipee

[Anonymous No.3971716]

>>3971701
thank you for new /sci/ troll material

[Anonymous No.3971726]

>>3971670
In general, statements like this one about natural numbers are notoriously hard to prove, especially because it involves an infinite number of cases. Given a random problem in number theory, chances are its unsolvable, or at the very least takes incredible effort to solve. Consider that fermats last theorem is one of the more easily stated problems in number theory.

[Anonymous No.3971724]

>>3971707
aha, I don't even know that mathematica help example.

[Josef crossed the Atlantic !!nUf2NflSAyw No.3971735]

>>3971724
Pic related

[Anonymous No.3971740]

Someone please start a hard (but doable, without too much in-depth knowledge) math problem thread.
I would, but my collection of good problems is low.

[Sheikah !NKCqu160yw No.3971747]

>>3971735

[Anonymous No.3971753]

>>3971735
>>3971747
I found the need examples always a bit over the top and useless. Therefore I made my own //sexy examples from early on. For copypaste reasons.

[Anonymous No.3971754]

Btw. I also find this to be neat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists

[Anonymous No.3971755]

>>3971740
projecteuler.org

[Anonymous No.3971771]

>>3971755
actual math, not programming
anyway, I did like the first 80 or so at projecteuler way back in high school

[Anonymous No.3971824]

>>3971754
She's not expressing approval. She's sarcastically expressing disapproval.

Do you legitimately have asperger's, bro?

[Anonymous No.3971885]

>>3971824
apperently.

No, actually I named it the lazy way by clicking the name I found in the folder, pic related. that's why there is the random 0. I didn't realize I wouldn't get that it's a sarcastic name in this case the next time I'd be searching for a pic. Now you know the full story of that pics name. nice, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.3971905]

Could it be that Grisha visits us? I mean OP.

but then he wouldnt question sth like this but he also seems confused about publication of his works hm, damn...

[Anonymous No.3972805]

>>3971754
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Jews

[Anonymous No.3972822]

>write one page of script in python to go through all possible numbers with this algorithm ad infinitum
>it always turns out right
>mfw I proved it
>mfw I get monies

>inb4 "hurrrrr what if one day it gets to a value it doesn't work at"
>rolleyes.jpg

[Anonymous No.3972826]

>>3972805
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jews_in_politics

[Anonymous No.3972851]

>>3971701
..but that's not induction

[Anonymous No.3972960]

6174 is known as Kaprekar's constant[1][2][3] after the Indian mathematician D. R. Kaprekar. This number is notable for the following property:
Take any four-digit number, using at least two different digits. (Leading zeros are allowed.)
Arrange the digits in ascending and then in descending order to get two four-digit numbers, adding leading zeros if necessary.
Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.
Go back to step 2.
The above process, known as Ka

[Anonymous No.3972977]

>>3972851
It's not mathematical induction. It is inductive reasoning, which is another sense of the word "induction."

[Anonymous No.3972986]

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/

Take a look at 'Today's high steps' to see the kind of numbers they're dealing with.

[Anonymous No.3972998]

>>3972986

This seems more pointless than sending radio waves into space for aliens.

[Anonymous No.3973005]

>>3971581
>implying I haven't finally proved it

[Anonymous No.3973011]

>>3972998
>sending radio waves into space for aliens
>pointless
Seriously, choose one.

[Anonymous No.3973012]

>>3971670
>>3971678
>Every conversation with my non-mathematical friends

[Anonymous No.3973017]

>>3973012
>friend
>non-mathematical
You, too, should choose one.

[Anonymous No.3973028]

>>3973017
Wise words