/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8259920]

Anyone here think the Collatz conjecture is unsolvable ?

[Anonymous No.8259959]

There was someone here a few days ago with a proof. No one debunked it, but it was probably bs.

>obligatory meme video
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mFpVDpKX70

[Anonymous No.8259960]

>>8259959
Link?

[Anonymous No.8259962]

>>8259959
You mean the guy who got almost there but just needed help with solving the halting problem?

[Anonymous No.8260096]

no

[Anonymous No.8260113]

>>8259920
This is just useless mathematical wankery

[Anonymous No.8260132]

>>8259920
Please someone answer these, im only a calc 1 student but i love math.

Is the collatz algorithm unique in that there no other relatively simple rules to reduce any integer to 1?

Even though its true at least until 2^60 or so why suspect that some larger number would be uncollatzable to 1?

Do tremendously large numbers start to exhibit different properties?

Would a proof of the RH be necessary to solve CC so we know how prime distribution works and can say for certain that no matter how large a number is there is a range of values that can be generalized to account for any case of CC ?

Thanks!!

[Anonymous No.8260137]

>>8260132
The easiest algorithm to reduce any number to one is very simple. Just take a number and print 1. Of course, this is bland, so we care about the Collatz conjecture not fir its utility but for the mathematics that may arise to solve it.

[Anonymous No.8260143]

Let me ask you something different-

Assume you have the same rules, only if n is odd, the result is 9n+1 instead of 3n+1.

Starting at 1, it seems like the sequence keeps on increasing forever. Does it?

[Anonymous No.8260147]

Is there any notable pattern exibited in drastic increases in the starting numbers ?

[Anonymous No.8260264]

>>8259959
that wasn't a proof, that was an insult to language and a waste of internet bandwidth

[Anonymous No.8260268]

>>8260132
1. Even simpler would be "subtract n-1 from n"
2. Regardless of people's belief in the truth of the Collatz conjecture, there needs to be a proof. It is not sufficient for mathematics that only any finite number, no matter how large, be checked when the question is about the natural numbers.
3. I don't know what properties you mean, but there obviously are no counterexamples yet.
4. If you mean that RH would imply CC or be necessary and not suffiecient - It doesn't appear like it, I don't think the conjectures have been linked mathematically.

[Anonymous No.8260301]

>>8260147
It seems like the number of steps increases in a logarithmic way, with some obvious outliers (lots of powers of two, for example). For example, in a program I wrote to test exactly that, I found that the first numbers exhibiting step counts of over 10,000 are roughly 10^100, and even then it is rare to find examples of it happening.

[Anonymous No.8260305]

>>8259920
I wonder if Collatz proved that every number collapses to one but he was really ahead of his time so he published it as a conjecture without the proof and then pretended he didn't know and then he died but in his deadbed he had forgotten he was mean to tell someone where the proof was hidden.

Call me crazy but I think Riemann did the same, the bastard.

Like how that time in Newton's time some mathematician published a problem as a challenge but he already had a really clever solution and wanted to see if someone else could come up with it. Other mathematicians did come with solutions but his proof was better than everyone else's.

Honestly I would not be fucking surprised.

[Anonymous No.8260359]

>>8260305
>I wonder if Collatz proved that every number collapses to one but he was really ahead of his time so he published it as a conjecture without the proof and then pretended he didn't know and then he died but in his deadbed he had forgotten he was mean to tell someone where the proof was hidden.
>Call me crazy but I think Riemann did the same, the bastard.

Romantic, but bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8260369]

>>8260359
It would not be the first time this happens in math, as I said. Which is why I suspect it.

[Anonymous No.8260373]

>>8260369
I think it's very unlikely that Collatz could have solved his Conjecture 80 years ago while it still eludes the most talented mathematicians of the present who have access to so much more complex and strong mathematical machinery.
The same goes for RH.

[Anonymous No.8260376]

>>8260373
muh elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem

[Anonymous No.8260382]

>>8260376
What?

[Anonymous No.8260402]

>>8260143
I think Terrence Tao discussed variants on collatz function and concluded that they probably diverged.

[Anonymous No.8260409]

>>8260143
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/the-collatz-conjecture-littlewood-offord-theory-and-powers-of-2-and-3/

[Anonymous No.8260833]

>>8260132

It's about the /proof/

If we had a proof for the collatz conjecture, we would learn a lot about numbers.

this is because we want to prove it goes to a power of 2. These are the numbers that go to 1 when divided by 2 over and over again.

If you take the prime factorization of a number and multiply it by 3, you would just add 3 to the prime factorization. But the trouble is when you add one, all bets are off and we have no idea good idea how the prime factorization is effected. Thus we cannot prove the collatz conjecture.

>>8260143

Watch the numberphile video. we have a proof that we can't really generalize about a version of the collatz conjecture with an+b

[Anonymous No.8260849]

>>8259920
why do people feel the need to have an opinion on the collatz conjecture, when we learned about it in computing 1 literally every autist in the class went up to the professor and told him they thought it was solvable because prime numbers factor or some meaningless pseudomathematical bullshit.

This problem should never be shown to non math majors, myself included. All it does is create delusions of grandeur in everyone who thinks about it and writes 2 lines of code to generate the sequence. Images of female mathematicians sucking your cock begging to know how you solved the conjecture while mathematicians from all around the world send you money and chisel your name into the mathematical hall of fame.

You would learn more, and be better off trying to trisect an angle, there's a chance there might be a solution someone missed that will overturn the entirety of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.8260855]

>>8259920
Why is 3n+1 so important and not n+1 or 2n+1?

[Anonymous No.8260888]

>>8260849
I don't think I've ever seen so much truth packed into one post.

[Anonymous No.8260957]

>>8260849
>better off trying to trisect an angle
Simple, just use origami.

[Anonymous No.8260958]

>>8260132
>Even though its true at least until 2^60 or so why suspect that some larger number would be uncollatzable to 1?
Spot the CS major. Ceiling Dijkstra is watching you make a whore out of logic.

[Anonymous No.8260961]

>>8260132
there are some conjectures with counter examples where n = 3.21×10^64

ur dumb af nigga

[Anonymous No.8260973]

>>8260132
>Even though its true at least until 2^60 or so why suspect that some larger number would be uncollatzable to 1?

[Anonymous No.8261020]

>>8260855
Because n+1 would be easy and 2n+1 would diverge.

[Anonymous No.8261027]

>>8260961
yeah, but those conjectures are a mess

this is a very simple postulate and follows straight forward logic

[Anonymous No.8261042]

>>8260973
Somebody fucked up. Time to redefine sine

Probably the cause of all problems in math

[Anonymous No.8261050]

>>8261027
>those conjectures are a mess
what? you can look at http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/514/conjectures-that-have-been-disproved-with-extremely-large-counterexamples

for example the conjecture n^(17)+9 and (n+1)^17+9 are relatively prime is true up to n=8424432925592889329288197322308900672459420460792433

[Anonymous No.8261057]

>>8261050
>conjecture has 17 and exponents in it
it was bound to fail

3n+1 doesn't have anything weird

[Anonymous No.8261073]

>>8261057
Let n = 1.5

[Anonymous No.8261077]

>>8261073
what? what happens?

[Anonymous No.8261080]

>>8261077
Numbers touch

[Anonymous No.8261088]

>>8260961
Yeah, but the numbers above 10^200 don't exist so if you check them all it's as good as proof as any.

[Anonymous No.8261093]

>>8261080
Lewd

[Anonymous No.8261114]

>>8261088
Dubs confirm.

[Anonymous No.8261123]

>>8261057
your criteria for a 'mess' is far too low

[Anonymous No.8261130]

>>8261088
ay fuck you man

[Anonymous No.8261233]

>>8260973
That's hilarious. Does this sequence have a name?

[Anonymous No.8261254]

>>8261233
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borwein_integral
discovered by the borwein father and son

[Anonymous No.8261261]

>>8260849
You can trisect a lot of angles, infinitely many in fact.

[Anonymous No.8261498]

>>8259920
sqtddtot incoming
> for even numbers you halve n
> for odd numbers you essentially multiply n by 3/2
isnt it kinda obvious that this would tend to 1 because n gets larger, slower than it gets smaller (you either halve, or multiply shy of doubling)? Assuming on average each of these two cases are used around half the time. Or is this assumption wrong?

[Anonymous No.8261618]

>>8260973
>>8261254
>tfw that an exact result but looks like a fucking roundoff error

[Anonymous No.8262242]

>>8260973
This is great, ty anon.

[Anonymous No.8262249]

>>8259920
Yes. I do not know what it is, so I cannot solve it.