4

For the Collatz Conjecture, it seems to me that if $m$ is the sum of the powers of $2$ for a non-trivial $n$ cycle (where each $x_1, \dots, x_n $ is odd and $x_i > 1$), it follows that $m < 2n$

Is my reasoning correct?

Let:

  • $\nu_2(x)$ be the 2-adic valuation of $x$
  • $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n$ be $n$ distinct integers such that:
    • $x_{i+1} = \dfrac{3x_i + 1}{2^{\nu_2(3x_i+1)}}$
    • $x_i > 1$

Observations:

  • $\left(3 + \dfrac{1}{x_{i}}\right) = \left(\dfrac{x_{i+1}}{x_{i}}\right)2^{\nu_2(3x_{i} + 1)}$ since:

    • $x_{i+1} = \dfrac{3x_{i}+1}{2^{\nu_2(3x_{i}+1)}}$
    • $2^{\nu_2(3x_{i}+1)}x_{i+1} = 3x_{i} + 1$
  • $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}\left(3 + \frac{1}{x_i}\right) = \left(\dfrac{x_{n+1}}{x_1}\right)\prod\limits_{i=1}^n2^{\nu_2(3x_i + 1)}$

This follows directly from the previous observation.

  • $\left(3 + \dfrac{1}{x_{\text{max}}}\right)^{n} \le \left(\dfrac{x_{n+1}}{x_1}\right)\prod\limits_{i=1}^n2^{{\nu}_2(3x_i + 1)} \le \left(3 + \dfrac{1}{x_{\text{min}}}\right)^{n}$

This follows directly from the previous observation.

Claim:

If $n \ge 1$, $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n$ forms a cycle, then $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n \nu_2(3x_i+1) < 2n$

Argument:

(1) Assume $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n$ form a cycle such that $x_{i+n} = x_i$

(2) Let $m = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \nu_2(3x_i+1)$ so that:

$$\left(3 + \dfrac{1}{x_{\text{max}}}\right)^{n} \le 2^{m} \le \left(3 + \dfrac{1}{x_{\text{min}}}\right)^{n}$$

(3) Clearly, $2^m > 3^n$ so that: $2^{\frac{m}{n}} > 3$

(4) It follows:

  • $$3 + \frac{1}{x_{\text{max}}} \le 2^{\frac{m}{n}} \le 3 + \frac{1}{x_{\text{min}}}$$
  • $$\frac{1}{x_{\text{max}}} \le 2^{\frac{m}{n}} - 3 \le \frac{1}{x_{\text{min}}}$$
  • $$x_{\text{max}} \ge \frac{1}{2^{\frac{m}{n}} - 3} \ge x_{\text{min}}$$

(5) $2^{\frac{m}{n}} - 3 < 1$ since $x_{\text{min}} > 1$ and $2^{\frac{m}{n}} > 3$

(6) It follows:

  • $$2^{\frac{m}{n}} < 2^2$$
  • $$m < 2n$$
Larry Freeman
  • 10,433
  • 2
    This seems to be correct. I've always put it this way $$ 3^n = (3+\frac1\infty)^n \lt 2^m \le (3+\frac11)^n=4^n=2^{2n} $$ because obviously $1 \le x_k \lt \infty$ and from there arrived at the same result as you. – Gottfried Helms Oct 11 '20 at 01:03
  • Much clearer than my argument. Thanks! Still catching up on the basics. :-) – Larry Freeman Oct 11 '20 at 01:04
  • 1
    Yes, and if you insert negative $x_k$ you arrive at the conditions for the cycles in the negative numbers (there we find 3 cyclic solutions) – Gottfried Helms Oct 11 '20 at 01:05
  • 1
    Wow. I did not consider negative numbers. Great tip. :-) – Larry Freeman Oct 11 '20 at 01:06
  • 1
    @LarryFreeman Your argument also seems correct to me. FYI, a minor point is the $p$-adic valuation function, instead of $v$, uses $\nu$ (i.e., \nu, which is a Greek letter). I realize that visually they're very similar, but I've seen this issue commented a couple of times on this site, so at least some people do notice it. You can also confirm this yourself by copying & pasting the formula (which is expressed in some form of LaTeX) from the Wikipedia article into some type of text document. – John Omielan Oct 11 '20 at 02:57
  • 1
    Thanks for the comment on p-adic valuation! I'll use nu going forward. – Larry Freeman Oct 11 '20 at 03:49

2 Answers2

1

[Correction: this argument contains a mistake]

Actually, a stronger result can be shown using the following argument:

Looking at both even and odd numbers in the cycle, it contains $n$ odd numbers and $m$ even numbers.

Since

$$ \frac{3^{m}}{2^{m+n}} < 1$$

it follows that

$$ 3^{m} < 2^{m+n} $$ $$ (\frac{3}{2})^m < 2^n $$ $$ m \cdot \ln (3/2) < n \cdot \ln 2 $$ $$ m < \frac{\ln 2}{\ln(3/2)}\cdot n < 1.71n $$

MikeB
  • 11
  • 1
    I am not clear why $\dfrac{3^m}{2^{m+n}} < 1$. Could you add more details to explain why this is true. – Larry Freeman Oct 11 '20 at 06:50
  • 1
    Could you please show how you arrive at your first formula? Usually, at the exponent of $3$ we have $n$ and at the exponent of$2$ we have $m$. (At least in the notation of this question. Is it just a typo?) – Gottfried Helms Oct 11 '20 at 07:00
  • For a Collatz sequence $x_1,x_2,...,x_{t+1}$ with $x_{i+1}=x_i/2$ if $x_i$ is even and $x_{i+1}=(3x_i+1)/2$ if $x_i$ is odd - in other words $t$ steps in the Collatz graph.

    Denote by $n$ the number of odd $x_i$s in the sequence and by $m$ the number of even $x_i$s in the sequence. Then $t=m+n$.

    It can be shown by induction that

    $$ x_{t+1} = \frac{3^n}{2^t}x_1 + A = \frac{3^n}{2^{m+n}}x_1 + A $$

    for some $A>0$. Therefore if $x_{t+1}=x_1$ it follows that

    $$ \frac{3^n}{2^{m+n}} < 1 $$

    – MikeB Oct 11 '20 at 07:49
  • MikeB, thanks for explaining! I may be misunderstanding but doesn't this lead to $t = m+n < n + 1.71n = 2.71n$? I like your insight! Isn't this result weaker than $2n$? Sorry for not fully getting it. Am I wrong? – Larry Freeman Oct 11 '20 at 08:04
  • Thanks @LarryFreeman. $m+n < 2.71n$ implies $m < 1.7n$, right? I think we use the same definitions for $n$ and $m$.

    Your $m = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\nu_2(3x_i+1)$ is exactly the number of even $x_i$s in the complete Collatz sequence (which includes also the even numbers).

    – MikeB Oct 11 '20 at 08:34
  • 2
    MikeB, you get $\frac{3^n}{2^{m+n}} < 1$ in your comment but start with $\frac{3^m}{2^{m+n}} < 1$ in your post . Also Larry's $m$ is equivalent to your $m+n$ – Collag3n Oct 11 '20 at 08:48
  • Hi @MikeB. Collag3n makes a great point. Your approach applies to the lower bound, not the upper bound. While I like your approach a lot, I think that Collag3n has provided a clearer answer to my question. – Larry Freeman Oct 11 '20 at 09:33
  • @LarryFreeman you're right about the definition of $m$, I didn't count the extra 1 for each odd number. The argument I was trying to make indeed produces a lower bound: $3^n < 2^m$ implies $m > 1.58n$. Thanks for the explanation! – MikeB Oct 11 '20 at 21:43
  • @Collag3n Thanks for finding the mistake! – MikeB Oct 11 '20 at 21:51
  • 1
    MikeB - why not actually correct the mistake in your msg and make it a more worthful contribution? (Otherwise, if the correction makes the answer meaningless at all, one can also retract/delete that answer, so later readers are not irritated) – Gottfried Helms Oct 13 '20 at 15:33
1

MikeB almost pinned it.

In a cycle, it is believed (but not proved) that $m$ is the first exponent of $2$ that make $2^m$ larger than $3^n$, in other word, $m=\lceil n\cdot log_2(3)\rceil$: $$n\cdot log_2(3)<m<n\cdot log_2(3)+1$$

Larry Freeman
  • 10,433
Collag3n
  • 2,556