Anyone here think the Collatz conjecture is unsolvable ?

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

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

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.

muh elementary proof of Fermat's last theorem

What?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

>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.

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

ur dumb af nigga

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

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

yeah, but those conjectures are a mess

this is a very simple postulate and follows straight forward logic

Somebody fucked up. Time to redefine sine

Probably the cause of all problems in math

>those conjectures are a mess
what? you can look at 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

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

3n+1 doesn't have anything weird

Let n = 1.5

what? what happens?

Numbers touch

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

Lewd

Dubs confirm.

your criteria for a 'mess' is far too low

ay fuck you man

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borwein_integral
discovered by the borwein father and son

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

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?

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

This is great, ty user.

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