5

For this inequality $$3^i\cdot\left\{\frac{2^i\cdot3^{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil-i-2}}}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}3^i}\right\}-\frac{2^i}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}}\leqslant 2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}\cdot\left\{\frac{2^i\cdot3^{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil-i-2}}}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}3^i}\right\}-1$$

where $\{x\}$ is the fractional part of $x$, and $i>6$ (to have integers on both sides),

Show that, for any $i$, this cannot be equal.

Note that $3^i\{x\}<2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}\{x\}$ (the fractional part is the same on both sides). Also note that for the exponents in the fractional part when $i>6$, we have $i<2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil-i-2}$ and obviously $i<{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}$

EDIT(27/01/22) this can also be written this way (no limitation on $i$): $$\begin{array}{|c|}\hline (3^i\cdot(3^{-i}\mod 2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_2\frac{3}{2}\rceil})-1)\cdot 2^{-\lceil i\cdot \log_2\frac{3}{2}\rceil}\leqslant 2^i\cdot(3^{-i}\mod 2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_2\frac{3}{2}\rceil})-1\\\hline\end{array}$$

$Background$

Any positive odd integer can be written as $$n_0=a\cdot 2^i-1$$

It is well known that in a Collatz sequence, $n_0$ goes straight to $a\cdot 3^i-1$ in exactly $i$ steps of the combined Collatz function $T(n)=\frac{3n+1}{2}$

Now this number being even, it needs to be shaved of a few factor $2$.

I am looking at $n_j=\frac{a\cdot 3^i-1}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_2\frac{3}{2}\rceil}}$, the first $n_j$ for which $\frac{3^i}{2^j}=\frac{3^i}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}}<1$ ($n_j$ can be odd or even)

Now in this particular scenario, it can be shown that $$n_j \le n_0$$ which is the simplified version of the equation on top, but I want to show that $$n_j < n_0$$

e.g. for $i=7$: $n_0=3\cdot 2^7-1=383$ Goes up to $6560=3\cdot 3^7-1$ and is shaved down to $n_j=205$ $$\{383,575,863,1295,1943,2915,4373,6560,3280,1640,820,410,205\}$$ Reminder: $3^i=2^{i\cdot \log_23}$

EDIT: Another way would be to show that $n_j$ or $n_0\neq\frac{3^i-2^i}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}-3^i}$

Here is a list of $n_0$ values for each $i>=1$ (they can be found using formula above for $i>6$): $$\{1,3,23,15,95,575,383,255,5631,...\}$$ and as said in a comment they are found every $2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}$ which means that numbers concerned by this post are: $$\{4k+1, 16k+3, 32k+23, 128k+15, 256k+95, 1024k+575, 4096k+383... \}$$

PARI/GP

nj(i)=3^i*frac((2^i*3^(2^(ceil(i*log(3)/log(2))-i-2)))
      /(2^ceil(i*log(3)/log(2))*3^i))-2^i/2^ceil(i*log(3)/log(2))

n0(i)=2^ceil(ilog(3)/log(2)) frac((2^i3^(2^(ceil(ilog(3)/log(2))-i-2))) /(2^ceil(ilog(3)/log(2))3^i))-1


Proposals to improve the PARI/GP-routines (thanks to Gottfried)

    \\ define global constants instead of calling recomputations of costly functions
    beta=log(3)/log(2)    \\ of course with sufficient internal precision, I use 200 by default
\\ then your functions become

{ nj(i)=3^ifrac((2^i3^(2^(ceil(ibeta)-i-2))) /(2^ceil(ibeta)3^i))-2^i/2^ceil(ibeta) }

{ n0(i)=2^ceil(ibeta) frac((2^i3^(2^(ceil(ibeta)-i-2))) /(2^ceil(ibeta)3^i))-1 }

I think it is a good habit, to use (and reserve) one-letter variable like i,j,k always for indices of loops, vectors etc. I take $N$ for the (N)umber-of-odd-steps

   { nj(N)=3^N*frac((2^N*3^(2^(ceil(N*beta)-N-2)))
          /(2^ceil(N*beta)*3^N))-2^N/2^ceil(N*beta)   }

{ n0(N)=2^ceil(Nbeta) frac((2^N3^(2^(ceil(Nbeta)-N-2))) /(2^ceil(Nbeta)3^N))-1 }

Now a new constant internal to your function which captures the repeated "ceil()"-expression. I use "S" for it, the number of even steps, or (S)um of exponents of 2. This is depending on the argument of your function and must be computed inside your function as a local constant:

    { nj(N)=my(S=ceil(N*beta));
          3^N*frac((2^N*3^(2^(S-N-2)))/(2^S*3^N))-2^N/2^S   }
{ n0(N)=my(S=ceil(N*beta));
      2^S*frac((2^N*3^(2^(S-N-2)))/(2^S*3^N))-1    }

Next, another local constant with letter $B$, because I've to use often the difference $S-N=B$ and cancel $2^S/2^N = 2^B$

    { nj(N)=my(S=ceil(N*beta),B=S-N);
          3^N    * frac(3^(2^(B-2)-N) /2^B )  -  1/2^B  }
{ n0(N)=my(S=ceil(N*beta),B=S-N);
      2^S    * frac(3^(2^(B-2)-N) /2^B )   - 1  }

Finally two more improvements are possible. One is the avoiding of intermediate gigantic numbers like $3^{2^B}$ by putting cancellations into the exponents, and second, the common expression of the frac() into an own function - to make sure the reader sees immediately, that it is the same term in both functions:

    beta = log(3)/log(2)
    fr(N,B)=  frac(2^(  beta*(2^(B-2)-N)  - B  ))
nj(N)  =  my(S=ceil(N*beta),B=S-N);    3^N * fr(N,B) -  1/2^B

n0(N)  =  my(S=ceil(N*beta),B=S-N);    2^S * fr(N,B) -  1

.

EDIT As we discussed in a linked post, this can also be written this way $$(3^N(3^{-N} \% 2^B)-1)2^{-B}\leq 2^N(3^{-N} \% 2^B)-1$$

Collag3n
  • 2,556
  • 2
    If I'm reading this right, this would lead a proof of Collatz by induction? So I doubt that making it strict is possible with current tools, as I'm almost certain someone will have looked at this. – It'sNotALie. Aug 29 '19 at 21:32
  • I don't think it would be usefull for an induction proof, this is only 1 particular case of Collatz trajectories. All integers can be written as $ n_0=a\cdot 2^i-1$, but only one of them can be divided by 2 down to that limit (one every $2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}$ in fact) – Collag3n Aug 30 '19 at 05:08
  • Sketch: any even integer goes down in the first step to a smaller number for which it works. Any positive odd integer then can follow this prcedure once to get from $n_0$ to $n_j$, which is strictly smaller than $n_0$ by this strict ineq. – It'sNotALie. Aug 30 '19 at 10:05
  • Even the less strict inequality $n_j \le n_0$, easy to prove for this particular inverse v-shape scenario, has never been proven for other cases (where $\frac{3^i}{2^{\lceil i\cdot \log_23\rceil}}<1)$ – Collag3n Aug 30 '19 at 10:29
  • I added some examples in my post – Collag3n Aug 30 '19 at 11:07
  • Steiner 1 cycle - 1977 – Collag3n Nov 02 '19 at 21:55
  • Additionally to the comment "1-cycle" do you have a copy of the John Simons/Benne de Weger articles, where they extended the 1-cycle concept and made the notation a bit more readable? Btw. I find the notation extremely difficult to read; each element like $log(3)/\log(2)$ which occurs multiple and is simply a constant should take only one letter, like for instance $\beta$ and definition taken out; similarly in Pari/GP make a (global) constant to avoid meaningless repetitions of computation. Perhaps you might like my essay/notation http://go.helms-net.de/math/collatz/Collatz_1cycledisproof.pdf – Gottfried Helms Jul 03 '20 at 06:53
  • Hello Collag3n - I've proposed an improvement of the Pari/GP routine. But because I don't want to force you and/or spoil your question & answer, I've put it in the temporary mathjax-box at https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4668/1714 . If you like it, you just copy&paste it otherwise it will automatically erode over the weeks... :-) – Gottfried Helms Jul 03 '20 at 08:50
  • 1
    @Gottfried Helms, When I posted this I didn't thought about the 1-cycle paper of Steiner, and I since read the m-cycle paper of Simons/Weger. I gave the full formula for starting/ending value of 1-cycles of length $i$ because I wasn't expecting an answer using transcendental number theory. For PARI GP code, thanks :) At the time it was just for informational purpose, but it is a good idea to put it here. – Collag3n Jul 03 '20 at 09:03
  • Hi collag3n - don't know whether this is still an open question? Rereading it and focusing the equation in your last edit I recognize, it is a formula which I as well had tried, and beside not being able to solve the non-existence of the equality its formulation gave a simple road into the Waring-problem (see mathworld) which - if this could be solved - it would your question as well. The similar formula occurs at eq 4.1.14 in my old essay https://go.helms-net.de/math/collatz/Collatz061102.pdf and runs all over chap 4.2 touching the Waringproblem-connection. I have it a bit more (....) – Gottfried Helms Nov 02 '23 at 21:58
  • (....) explicite today (but not much). As I said in the beginning: don't know whether this is still of interest for you. (I can't offer a solution beyond the other path for 1-cycles-disproof according to Steiner and Simons.) – Gottfried Helms Nov 02 '23 at 22:01
  • @Gottfried Helms, my question was about the equality, and Steiner answer that, but it does not mean I won't come back to it to make some other connections (like the Waring problem indeed). I am on something else for the moment. – Collag3n Nov 06 '23 at 11:48

0 Answers0