Headache about Kollatz algorythm

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FromRussiaWithLove
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Kollatz algorithm, specifically the conjecture involving the equation x=((3^n)*m-1)/(2^k) where both x and m are odd. The relationship proposed, x=(2^(n-1))*m1-1 with m1 being odd, remains unproven and is a subject of ongoing mathematical research. While the possibility of this relationship being true exists, it necessitates a rigorous proof for validation, emphasizing the importance of critical examination in mathematical discourse.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical conjectures
  • Familiarity with the Kollatz algorithm
  • Knowledge of number theory, particularly odd and even integers
  • Experience in mathematical proof techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Research mathematical proof techniques relevant to conjectures
  • Study the properties of odd and even integers in number theory
  • Explore existing literature on the Kollatz algorithm and its implications
  • Investigate the role of rigorous proof in mathematical validation
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of number theory, and anyone interested in the complexities of mathematical conjectures and proofs.

FromRussiaWithLove
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
who can prove that if we have x=((3^n)*m-1)/(2^k) where x and m are odd
then x will be: x=(2^(n-1))*m1-1 where m1 is odd? is it possible to prove it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
http://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/27/21992.html?1105738023

-- AI
 
Last edited by a moderator:


The Kollatz algorithm is a well-known mathematical conjecture that has been extensively studied by mathematicians. While it is a fascinating and complex problem, it is currently unsolved and remains a topic of ongoing research in the mathematics community.

Regarding the specific question about the relationship between x and m in the equation x=((3^n)*m-1)/(2^k), it is possible that this relationship is true, but it would require a rigorous proof to confirm it. It is not something that can be simply asserted without evidence or mathematical reasoning.

If someone claims to have a proof for this relationship, it would be important to carefully examine their reasoning and evidence. This is the standard process in mathematics - to carefully scrutinize and validate any claims or proofs before accepting them as true.

Overall, while it is possible that this relationship may be true, it would require a rigorous proof to confirm it. It is important to approach mathematical conjectures with a critical and analytical mindset, and to not simply accept claims without proper evidence or reasoning.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Coefficients of Chebyshev polynomials
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Fourier Transformation on a Ring
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Undergrad Dfns group action & group, written in terms of the other
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad How to show ##p(x)=g(x)x\pm 1\in\Bbb{Q}[x]## is irreducible in ##\Bbb{Q}_{\Bbb{Z}}[x]##?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
Engineering Recursive formula to compute the probability the starting player wins
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Undergrad Trouble with a passage in Zariski & Samuel's Commutative algebra text
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Trouble understanding an online solution to an exercise in Dummit & Foote
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad Dimension and solution to matrix-vector product
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Undergrad Localizing single variable quotient polynomial ring at a prime ideal
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Proving inequality about dimension of quotient vector spaces
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K