2 ms·
The 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 exi
by Someone 4y ago
The 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