0

I came across an argument to show that there are no non-trivial cycles in collatz conjecture which is too simple to be correct. My interest is to find the flaw.

I believe that the first step is correct. I will post the next step as a separate question. I believe that there is a flaw in the next step but I have not yet found it.

Here is the first step:

Let:

  • $\nu_2(x)$ be the 2-adic valuation of $x$
  • $L_k = \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \nu_2(3x_i+1)$

(1) Let $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_k$ be a sequence of $k$ odd integers with:

  • $x_{i+1} = \dfrac{3x_i+1}{2^{\nu_2(3x_i+1)}}$

(2) $2^{L_k}x_{i+k} = 3^kx_i + 3^{k-1} + \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}3^{k-1-s}2^{\sum_{t=0}^s\nu_2(3x_{i+t}+1)}$

  • Base Case: $k=2$

$$2^{\nu_2(3x_{i+1}+1)}x_{i+2} = 3x_{i+1}+1 = 3\left(\frac{3x_i + 1}{2^{\nu_2(3x_i+1)}}\right)+1 = \frac{3^2x_i + 3}{2^{\nu_2(3x_i+1)}}+1$$

  • Assume that up to $k$

$$2^{L_k}x_{i+k} = 3^kx_i + 3^{k-1} + \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}3^{k-1-s}2^{\sum_{t=0}^s\nu_2(3x_{i+t}+1)}$$

  • Inductive Step:

$$x_{i+k+1} = \frac{3x_{i+k}+1}{2^{\nu_2(3x_{i+k}+1)}}=\frac{3(2^{L_k}x_{i+k})+2^{L_k}}{2^{\nu_2(3x_{i+k}+1)+L_k}} = \frac{3^{k+1}x_i + 3^{k} + \sum\limits_{s=1}^{k}3^{k-s}2^{\sum_{t=0}^s\nu_2(3x_{i+t}+1)}}{2^{\nu_2(3x_{i+k}+1)+L_k}}$$

(3) Assume that a cycle exists such that $x_{i+k} = x_i$

(4) It follows from (2) that for $k\ge2$:

$$(2^{L_k} - 3^k)x_i = 3^{k-1} + \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}3^{k-1-s}2^{\sum_{t=0}^s\nu_2(3x_{i+t}+1)}$$


Edit 1: I found the mistake in the next step of the argument.

Based on the answer given, I realize that the order of the arguments confuses the argument. I have changed the order since (2) does not assume that a cycle exists. It should be true for all sequences of odd integers where each integer $x_{i+1} = \dfrac{3x_i+1}{2^{\nu_2(3x_i+1)}}$

Edit 2: I made a typo in my statement of the summation that have been identified by Hagen von Eitzen and Collag3n.

Step (2) should be:

(2) $2^{L_k}x_{i+k} = 3^kx_i + 3^{k-1} + \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}3^{k-1-s}2^{\sum_{t=0}^{s-1}\nu_2(3x_{i+t}+1)}$

Then, using Hagen von Eitzen's example:

$$9 \times 27 + 3 + 2 = 248$$ $$2^{2+1}x_3 = 8\times 31 = 248$$

Larry Freeman
  • 10,433
  • 5
    To get someone to bother checking this, suggest you give the source of the argument you "came across". It seems to me that would add to the value of your question, so others could check its source. – coffeemath Mar 27 '21 at 20:12
  • 1
    @Cofeemath No source for this. I talk with other amateurs. I enjoy reviewing mathematical arguments and finding the mistakes. This argument occurred to me one morning. I am sure there is a problem but I have not found it yet. – Larry Freeman Mar 27 '21 at 23:20
  • lowest odd will always be 3 mod 4. – Roddy MacPhee Apr 08 '21 at 00:57

1 Answers1

1

You make an induction on the length of a cycle. And then in the induction step you even assume that the same numbers $x_i$ of a $k$-cycle are also in a $(k+1)$-cycle. Thus you essentially assume that the cycle has length $1$.

Edit after revision of the question: The claim $$ 2^{L_k}x_{i+k} = 3^kx_i + 3^{k-1} + \sum_{s=1}^{k-1}3^{k-1-s}2^{\sum_{t=0}^s\nu_2(3x_{i+t}+1)}$$ is verifiably wrong, e.g., for $k=2$, $x_1=27$, $x_2=\frac{3\cdot 27+1}2=41$, the right hand side evaluates to $$9\cdot 27+3+2^{\nu_2(3\cdot 27+1)+\nu_2(3\cdot 41+1)} =254,$$ which is not even a multiple of $x_3=\frac{3\cdot 41+1}{4}=31$.

  • 1
    The induction is meant to be valid independent of a cycle existing. There is no assumption of a cycle in step (2). Apologies if this point was not clear. I have changed the order of the argument to make this point clearer. Thanks very much for calling out this observation. – Larry Freeman Mar 28 '21 at 07:50
  • 1
    The sum goes from $t=0$ to $s-1$ – Collag3n Mar 28 '21 at 17:00
  • Thanks @Collag3n and Hagen von Etzen! I missed that. I will add an update. :-) – Larry Freeman Mar 28 '21 at 18:35