Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

• Total Posts: 524120
• Total Topics: 15601
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 5
• Guests: 23
• Total: 28

Author Topic: The Collatz Conjecture  (Read 3122 times)

guest1289

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 326
The Collatz Conjecture
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:11:26 AM »
The  COLLATZ CONJECTURE

I found( or remembered it ) this well known  historical maths problem( COLLATZ CONJECTURE ),  which no one has ever found an answer to,   presented on a well known technology website recently.
I spent an hour or 2 on it,  before I realized / noticed,   that the mechanics, structures, or rules of the problem,   are unintentionally( intentionally ? ) designed to reject any possible answer to it.
This problem does either of the following :
x divided by 2 :  x/2
x multiplied by 3, and then add 1 :  3x + 1
The objective is to find any number for which the result will be anything other than  '1'.
-  The result / answer  '3' is  not allowed as an alternative result to '1'.
-   And you can never reach '0' (  as an alternative result to '1' ) ,   because x/2 will never be '0' etc.
- Examine  the framework of the mechanics of the problem.

Unless there are aspects of the 'Collatz Conjecture'  that I am not unaware of,  I am sure that there is no possible unfound solution to it,  so that  -
-  It should not be presented as a problem to be solved
-  And / or,  it should be removed from wikipedia,  or  wikipedia should state that there is no possible unfound solution to it.
(  I have looked at it fully,  it terms of the necessary basics )

I am very surprised at all the very advanced research and time etc, that has been spent on that conjecture.
(  It's like some sort of academic hoax.  I'm sure someone could come up with another one   )

The Collatz Conjecture
« on: October 25, 2016, 12:11:26 AM »

guest1289

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 326
Re: The Collatz Conjecture
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2016, 12:25:31 AM »
I briefly re-examined  the  'Collatz Conjecture' today,   because I may have failed to appreciate the behavior  of very large numbers which have never been tested,  for example,  in the calculations up in that range they may land on more  odd numbers than in lower ranges,  and as a consequence spend more time  being  multiplied by 3( and having 1 added  ).

This  conjecture involves two sets/lists of numbers,
-  'Tested-List',  the list of numbers that have been tested so far,
-  and the  'Untested-list',    the list of numbers above the Tested-List  which are yet to be tested( some may call that list infinity ).

The point is that hopefully any number tested in the  'Untested-list',   would through the course of the calculations eventually make it's way down into the  'Tested-List',   and every number in the tested list will always result in  '1'.
However,  if a number in the  'Untested-list',   'Would-Not'   through the course of the calculations eventually make it's way down into the  'Tested-List',  Then,  that would be because it would keep on bouncing around up there in the  high-altitude-number  regions,  for ever.

So,  the only alternative answer possible to  '1',  would be 'Infinity',  since there could be a number that would keep on bouncing around up there in the  high-altitude-number  regions,  for ever.

But,  I think that many mathematicians might assume that all numbers,  would  through the course of the calculations eventually make it's way down into the  'Tested-List',   and every number in the  'Tested-List'  will always result in  '1',  ONLY BECAUSE IT IS SPECIFICALLY STRUCTURED TO CONVERT ANY NUMBER INTO  '1',  AND BECAUSE  '3' IS NOT ACCEPTED AS AN ALTERNATIVE RESULT TO  '1'.

So I am now convinced more than before before,  that I am completely right,  and that there is no possible alternative answer to '1'( unless 'infinity' is accepted as an alternative answer ).
______

So,  I am sure that there is no possible unfound solution to it,  so that  -
-  It should not be presented as a problem to be solved
-  And / or,  it should be removed from wikipedia,  or  wikipedia should state that there is no possible unfound solution to it.

I know that things similar to the  'Collatz Conjecture'  happen and exist in the world of  theoretical-physics  etc,  but I am surprised that this exists in the world of mathematics,   since in maths there is usually always a  definite right answer and wrong answers.

guest1289

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 326
Re: The Collatz Conjecture
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2016, 08:58:28 PM »
I will re-read your post to see if it all makes sense, if it's all logical.

A lot of the things you post are correct,  while others are logical.
___________

The Collatz Conjecture

I thought that I might type my solution to this conjecture,  in another way.

-   I am as sure as possible,   that I have proven that there Is  'No Number'  that through the course of the  'Collatz-calculations'  would not stop/result in any other number other than  '1'.
MY-PROOF :
-   When in the course of the Collatz-calculations,  'Any'  'Presently'  'Un-Tested'  number makes it's way down into the  'set / list'  of all the numbers that have been  'Tested So Far',    then obviously we know it will result in  '1'.

(   I do not know if there are numbers,  that would never stop at any number,  that would continue calculating into infinity,  would infinity be accepted as an answer ? )

(   I assume  '1' and / or '0' are excluded as numbers to test )

(  Why did people bother testing huge numbers,  since the  'Collatz Mechanizm' is specifically designed to  continue going until  '1'  is reached,   THATS WHY IT REJECTS  '3' as result )

(   Why did anyone think that any huge number would magically just stop at some unknown number  )