Anon's Conjecture

File: tZ8Ojbs.jpg (352KB, 8000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 8000x1200px

>collatz conjecture is actually a conjecture

Taking the bait here....
1. What you wrote there is not a conjecture, but an algorithm.
2. Given that you probably wanted to give the conjecture that your algorithm terminates for every initial n: You literally took the part that made it hard to prove and left it out.
Because when you have an odd number, you add 1. Then you've got an even number which you then have to divide by 2. So basically all you do is those two operations:
a) Divide by 2
b) Add one and then divide by 2.
Because both those operations always leave you with an n smaller than the n before, you can easily prove this by induction.

It's not that easy with collatz because your operation when odd is (3n+1)/2 which actually results in a outcome > n. This means that n could actually start to diverge or enter a cycle for a specific starting n.

Ah yes, the good old n + 1 conjecture.

Who fucking cares how long it takes to get n to 1. Why do people actually give a shit about analysis.

>>8557855
Because pure math is still a thing for some reason.

>>8557875
>for some reason
you're fucking sad

>>8557855
that's number theory, cat.

>>8556467
>"Paul Erdős said about the Collatz conjecture: 'Mathematics may not be ready for such problems.'"

This has to be a joke. Everyone is having a giggle

>>8558035
He's right, in a sense. Nobody has developed the necessary set of tools to tackle autistic questions like this

>>8556467
this clearly terminates

>>8558035
no. this is a problem in dynamics.

>>8558045
>this clearly terminates
excuse me, where is the proof?

:^)

>>8556467
Tfw you're a brainlet OP