3 ms·
You only criticized my first proof though. I shipped two proofs gladly! The second one just uses inverses of the collatz function and graph theory.
by sean_pedersen 4y ago
You only criticized my first proof though. I shipped two proofs gladly! The second one just uses inverses of the collatz function and graph theory.
- Someone 4y agoThe second one is inscrutable to me, but seems to depend on the existence of the inverse of a single iteration of the Collatz sequence. That inverse doesn’t exist. An easy counterexample is that both 1 and 8 in a single step produce 4. In general, for any odd n, both n and 6n+2 in a single step lead to 3n+1.
- sean_pedersen 4y ago"That inverse doesn’t exist." That is my new math contribution apparently then. I am happy to explain my proof. I can inverse f(x)=f(x+1) easily as g(x)=f(x)-1 since g(f(x)) = x do you understand my functional inversion approach now better?
- Khelavaster 4y agoWhat's the reverse of '4', since '1' and '8' both link to it?
- sean_pedersen 4y agoThe reverse is a "Quantum" tree (DAG): 4->1,4->8