20221105, 17:27  #23  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2×3×23×61 Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20221105 at 17:30 

20221107, 10:05  #24  
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
2827_{16} Posts 
Quote:
What is timecostly is to crunch all those remaining sequences, to see they terminate. Some of them are "millions", so the process will take time, even if you have a lot of computers, and even if each step is almost instant (division by 2 is cutting the last zero, in binary, and multiplication by 3 is just a shift and add). My advice is, don't spend time with Colatz. Not only my advice, but from people who know what they say. Unless you are some genius mathematician, like Terrence Tao, or have that spark of genius like some of my colleagues had, you will only waste precious years of your life. It is catchy, because it looks so simple. Calculations like these, however, lead nowhere, unless you can find a counterexample (which is not probable, many mathematicians believe the conjecture is true). 

20221107, 17:19  #25 
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
2·3·29·67 Posts 

20221107, 17:37  #26  
Bamboozled!
"๐บ๐๐ท๐ท๐ญ"
May 2003
Down not across
2D8A_{16} Posts 
Quote:
I spent a cpu year or so back in my naive youth.Likely a coreminute or few these days, thanks to Moore. This one is only going to be solved by deep mathematics about which we barely have a clue right now. A parellel might be FLT, which is also deceptively easy to state and yet remarkably difficult to prove. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Collatz conjecture  RMLabrador  Miscellaneous Math  12  20221226 18:58 
Collatz Conjecture Proof  Steve One  Miscellaneous Math  21  20180308 08:18 
this thread is for a Collatz conjecture again  MattcAnderson  MattcAnderson  16  20180228 19:58 
Collatz conjecture  MattcAnderson  MattcAnderson  4  20170312 07:39 
Related to Collatz conjecture  nibble4bits  Math  1  20070804 07:09 