Collatz Conjecture - Syracuse Function

Syracuse Function

If k is an odd integer, then 3k + 1 is even, so we can write 3k + 1 = 2ak′, with k' odd and a ≥ 1. We define a function f from the set of odd integers into itself, called the Syracuse function, by taking f (k) = k′ (sequence A075677 in OEIS).

Some properties of the Syracuse function are:

  • f (4k + 1) = f (k) for all k in .
  • For all p ≥ 2 and h odd, fp−1(2p h − 1) = 2·3p − 1h − 1 (here, f p−1 is function iteration notation).
  • For all odd h, f(2h − 1) ≤ (3h − 1)/2

The Syracuse conjecture is that for all k in, there exists an integer n ≥ 1 such that fn(k) = 1. Equivalently, let E be the set of odd integers k for which there exists an integer n ≥ 1 such that fn(k) = 1. The problem is to show that E = . The following is the beginning of an attempt at a proof by induction:

1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are known to be elements of E. Let k be an odd integer greater than 9. Suppose that the odd numbers up to and including k − 2 are in E and let us try to prove that k is in E. As k is odd, k + 1 is even, so we can write k + 1 = 2ph for p ≥ 1, h odd, and k = 2ph − 1. Now we have:

  • If p = 1, then k = 2h − 1. It is easy to check that f (k) < k, so f (k) ∈ E; hence kE.
  • If p ≥ 2 and h is a multiple of 3, we can write h = 3h′. Let k′ = 2p + 1h′ − 1; then f (k′) = k, and as k′ < k, k′ is in E; therefore k = f (k′) ∈ E.
  • If p ≥ 2 and h is not a multiple of 3 but h ≡ (−1)p mod 4, we can still show that kE.

The problematic case is that where p ≥ 2, h not multiple of 3 and h ≡ (−1)p + 1 mod 4. Here, if we manage to show that for every odd integer k′, 1 ≤ k′ ≤ k − 2 ; 3k′ ∈ E we are done.

Read more about this topic:  Collatz Conjecture

Famous quotes containing the words syracuse and/or function:

    The Dada object reflected an ironic posture before the consecrated forms of art. The surrealist object differs significantly in this respect. It stands for a mysterious relationship with the outer world established by man’s sensibility in a way that involves concrete forms in projecting the artist’s inner model.
    —J.H. Matthews. “Object Lessons,” The Imagery of Surrealism, Syracuse University Press (1977)

    Philosophical questions are not by their nature insoluble. They are, indeed, radically different from scientific questions, because they concern the implications and other interrelations of ideas, not the order of physical events; their answers are interpretations instead of factual reports, and their function is to increase not our knowledge of nature, but our understanding of what we know.
    Susanne K. Langer (1895–1985)