1

So, this is a follow up to my previous question on the same topic, and in this question, I used the same technique, only with a larger value. Here's the set below:

S no. Resultant Value
1 227
2 14549
3 931157
4 59594069
5 3814020437
6 244097307989
7 15622227711317
8 999822573524309

I know this is a short set of values, but the calculations were getting large, and it was hard to generate more values. However, if they are needed for finding the function, do let me know and I will try my best to provide.

Please refer to the answer of my previous post for the general base formula of sorts for this one.

I tried a lot to get a function that generates the value for this, but I really couldn't find one, as I am also not as much of an expert at math, so I would really appreciate your help in finding the function for this.

L0tad
  • 119
  • 1
    "Find the next term in the sequence" questions are never well-posed. The function $n\mapsto\begin{cases}227&n=1\14549&n=2\\cdots\end{cases}$ would answer your question but it's obviously not what you want. This needs more context – FShrike May 14 '23 at 17:24
  • There is a very simple matrix-method, to find the functions, if sequences are generated/generatable by some recursive formula like $$a_{k+2}=c_1 a_{k+1}+c_2 a_k$$ or $$a_{k+1}=c_1 +c_2 a_k$$ . For your sequence a function $$a_{k+1}=21 + 64 \cdot a_k$$ or $$a_k= 227 \cdot 64^k+21 { 64^k-1\over 64-1 }$$ fit the data. – Gottfried Helms May 14 '23 at 19:39
  • @FShrike I apologize if the previous post did not provide enough context. What more would you like to know? – Tsar Asterov XVII May 15 '23 at 01:13
  • 1
    The numbers just have no meaning whatsoever. And as I’ve already mentioned, find the next term in the sequence problems are not well posed so we should know what you want a fitting function for. I wouldn’t be able to help with this question anyway, I’m just making a general point – FShrike May 15 '23 at 08:09
  • @FShrike I absolutely see your point, and it is fair. I am just a little bit uncomfortable with sharing the entire thing at the current moment. However, finding the functions to generate these values greatly help me with what would be the general formula in my purposes. But, if you would like to know, what I'm trying to do is try to back trace the whole Collatz conjecture into a tree, whose details and progress I do plan on sharing on the site once I have more data samples finished. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 15 '23 at 11:31
  • @GottfriedHelms Thanks a lot for the formula sir! I do have a small request however. Could you perhaps write it in the form of a summation, in a similar form to the answer to my previous post. Could you also teach me the way to finding these functions and writing them as summations myself? I do not wish to spam the stack exchange with questions like these when there's more pressing matters. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 15 '23 at 11:42
  • Aster17 - I just began an explanative answer on the method composing in a sandbox. But I'm very slow with elaborating thoughts theses days, maybe I'll finish in the evening or tomorrow. Concerning the summation-form: I did not yet understand what you exactly want already in your first question and saw, that someone seemed to have solved it. So I think I first do the explanation for the simple (non-summed) formula. (You might see my approach and progress in the sandbox: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/11002/1714 ) – Gottfried Helms May 15 '23 at 12:28

2 Answers2

3

$7+22\cdot 9\cdot 4^{z+1} + \cdot \sum\limits_{k=0}^{z+1} 22\cdot 4^k$

with $z=3n-1, n\geq 0$

But as said in the first post, there are many ways to write this sequence. Why do you want to use those weird sums and not the formulas proposed in the first post or by Gottfried?

EDIT:

Depends on what representation you prefer, but let's start with $a_{n+1}=64\cdot a_n+21$

I will assume you have some knowledge of the tree structure.

There are branches where the exponent of 2 are odd, in other words, when you multiply elements of that branch by 3 (+1), the number of division by 2 is odd:

$\begin{array}{c|lcr} \text{division by}&\text{branch element} \\ \hline 2^1&4n+3\\ 2^3&16n+13\\ 2^5&64n+53\\ ...&... \end{array}$ They all lead to $6n+5$

There are branches where the exponent of 2 are even, in other words, when you multiply elements of that branch by 3 (+1), the number of division by 2 is even:

$\begin{array}{c|lcr} \text{division by}&\text{branch element} \\ \hline 2^2&8n+1\\ 2^4&32n+5\\ 2^6&128n+21\\ ...&... \end{array}$ They all lead to $6n+1$

Now apparently you are only interested in branch values $x\equiv 2\mod (3)$ and since elements on the branches are cyclic$\mod (3)$, you have to pick an element every 3 elements on that branch, hence the multiplication by $64$ and addition of $21$ to get the third next element (you multiply by $4$ and add $1$ to get the next element).

since the first $x\equiv 2\mod (3)$ can be in position 1, 2 or 3 of a branch, the starting value $a_0$ of one of your sequences can be of one of those 6 forms (the above forms with the additional constraint that they are $\equiv 2 \mod(3)$):

$\begin{array}{c|lcr} \text{division by}&a_0\equiv 2\mod(3) \\ \hline 2^1&12n+11\\ 2^2&24n+17\\ 2^3&48n+29\\ 2^4&96n+5\\ 2^5&192n+53\\ 2^6&384n+149\\ \end{array}$

e.g. $a_0=227$ is of the form $12n+11$ and only have 1 division by 2, but any number of this forms is valid.

Note: if you are interested in $x\equiv 1\mod (3)$ or $x\equiv 0\mod (3)$, you can apply the same reasoning for calculating the $a_0$ admissible forms.

Now, if you are trying to find which form or which representation will show you a pattern to know how many odd steps away (number of multiplication by 3 (+1)) you are from 1 (e.g. $53,113,227$ are 2 odd steps away from 1), good luck. Nobody found anything yet (but there are other representations for that).

Collag3n
  • 2,556
  • Ah well, thanks a lot for the sum! And you and Gottfried make a fair point. I haven't gotten very far with the sequences right now anyways, so I could and probably should make the switch. Could you perhaps show me resources or teach me how to use the formulae in the format you and Gottfried have proposed in the last 2 posts? I want to be able to do it myself, but I don't know how to, so I would really appreciate it. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 15 '23 at 16:45
  • @Aster17, see my update – Collag3n May 16 '23 at 18:10
  • Ahh, Collag3n, I think you and I have a different understanding of branches in this context, so I apologize. I also have to stick with the weird sums, as they are the only thing I can alter and work with right now, so again, I'm sorry for that as well l. However, there does seem to be a bit of an interesting pattern with some of the coefficients in the sum formulae you have provided, which I can only confirm with more such weird sums for larger sets of numbers. I really hope I am not being a nuisance, the sums are the only thing I can work with right now. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 17 '23 at 01:13
  • The reason I can only use sums is because I need to alter the upper limit of the sum for the other similar sets I get for the same value (there's 3 sets for each number, 1 being nil, and the other 2 having the same sum, with only slight alterations to the upper limit of the sum). What I am trying to do, I don't want to reveal just yet, until I have gotten a good amount of these sums. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 17 '23 at 01:15
  • @Aster17. I used a classical definition of branch of the Collatz tree which is a set of numbers that leads to the same number in 1 odd step. Your branches fit that definition except you filter them on values that are the same $\mod 3$ which give you that specific recurrence $64a_n+21$. I just gave you a way to find all possible $a_0$ for that recurrence $\equiv 2 \mod 3$. From there you can use different representations like Gottfried $a_k= a_0 \cdot 64^k+21 { 64^k-1\over 64-1 }$ or $a_k= 227 \cdot 64^k+21 \sum 64^i$... – Collag3n May 17 '23 at 06:41
  • Now you are free to use any representation you want, and you can spot some patterns in some of them, but I am not sure those sums are much more predictable – Collag3n May 17 '23 at 06:46
  • I mean, as for the predictability of the sums, we'll have to see as we find more of these sums. One thing I did notice though, is that in the sums until now have been in the form: $$y+10x\cdot4^{z+1}+\sum\limits_{k=0}^zx\cdot 4^k$$ what I noticed was that $\frac{x}{y}$, seems to be a somewhat close approximation of $\pi$ until now, like $\frac{10}{3}$, and now $\frac{22}{7}$, each getting smaller and smaller to $\pi$. Could this perhaps mean something? I may sound dumb here, but maybe there is something, or this is just wishful speculation. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 17 '23 at 13:18
  • @Tsar Asterov XVII, I don't see a link to $\pi$ but more $\frac{3x+1}{x}$, but my point is that 3, 7 or what comes next is not obvious. But you are right, we would need more sums to tell – Collag3n May 17 '23 at 13:56
  • Would me generating more numbers and asking for help in finding sums for them make me a nuisance to the site? Because I've really tried to do it myself, but I'm not the brightest and can't do it. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 17 '23 at 14:09
  • Ok, but I don't see where it can go. As said, there are many ways to write those sequences e.g for $a_0=113$ we can write $28+\sum\limits_{k=0}^z85\cdot 4^k$ or $a_0=53$ we have $13+\sum\limits_{k=0}^z40\cdot 4^k$ with $z=3n, n\geq 0$... – Collag3n May 17 '23 at 16:24
  • I do think we could go ahead with this format and try something. I'm going to get the values for the next set of numbers in a couple weeks, and we could try making a sum out of it in this format? I will also try to fit the very first sum (the one I showed as the base in my first post) into this format. Sounds good? – Tsar Asterov XVII May 17 '23 at 16:34
  • For the sums formula you have given, can you find a formula where the power of 4 in 220 * 4^z+1 is z + 1, but the upper limit of the sum is also z + 1? – Tsar Asterov XVII May 22 '23 at 17:13
  • $1 +222\cdot 4^{z+1} + 4\cdot \sum\limits_{i=0}^{z+1} 4^i$ or $3 +214\cdot 4^{z+1} + 10\cdot \sum\limits_{i=0}^{z+1} 4^i$ or ...? with $z=3n-1$ (you can also get rid of the +1 and -1) – Collag3n May 22 '23 at 18:43
  • yikes, it really does look like it will have to change huh? It wont follow the pretty format of our previous sums? Or is it possible to find one that does follow? – Tsar Asterov XVII May 23 '23 at 00:59
  • You mean like $7 +22\cdot 9\cdot 4^{z+1} + \cdot \sum\limits_{i=0}^{z+1} 22\cdot 4^i$ ? – Collag3n May 23 '23 at 16:58
  • Hey! That works out pretty well actually. Thanks a lot! – Tsar Asterov XVII May 23 '23 at 17:45
  • 1
    can you add $7 + (22 \cdot 9 \cdot 4^{z+1}) + \sum_{k=0}^{z+1} 4^k$ in your answer so I can mark it as the right one? – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 10:12
  • $\sum_{k=0}^{z+1} 22 \cdot 4^k$ and sorry for all the nuisance I have caused.
  • – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 10:46
  • no problem. I updated the formula – Collag3n May 24 '23 at 12:10
  • I hope we can work on this soon once I get another sequence, ja? – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 14:08
  • Ok. with your next seq, I will try to find a systematic way for you to find them by yourself. I am not sure yet how, I have not a clear procedure. As you can see, they can be written in may different ways – Collag3n May 24 '23 at 14:32
  • to find a generalized formula for these is the point haha. With this one, I think maybe we can find a generalized formula, maybe. From what I have seen, there is a mirror cycle of sorts happening, but only the 6th one can confirm it. The formula I've gotten until now from the formulae you have provided is $x + (y \cdot w \cdot 4^{z+1}) + \sum_{k = 0}^{z + 1} y \cdot 4^k$ where $z$ is any natural number, and $x, y$, and $w$ are some coefficients that have a relation to the power of the numbers I am generating the sequences from. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 14:58
  • The 6th sequences formula will confirm the above formula, but to find the relation of x, y and w, we'll probably need more sequences, and then, Branch-Order 1 formulae will be done, which if we can find, would mean then the branches of higher orders can also be predicted, albeit in a difficult manner. I do not know how you find such formula so quickly with such ease, but I am genuinely thankful for your help. I will go on to work on getting the values for the 6th sequence. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 15:01
  • Branch Order 1 and Branch 1 are different, I would like to point that out. In Branch 1, 2 and 3, the value of $x$ is 3, 3, and 7 respectively. The values for $y$ are 10, 10, 22 respectively, and the values for $w$ are 0, 10, 9 respectively. Considering this mirroring phenomena I am seeing, I suspect the next sequence will have something to do with 7 and 22 as $x$ and $y$, but I could be wrong. The reason for using these weird sums specifically is these are not the complete sequences, and the values for the complete sequence are based on 3 possibilities of the value $z$, for which the sums work – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 15:09
  • I plan on making a post for the entire thing I am doing with full clarity, if the 6th sequence confirms my beliefs. – Tsar Asterov XVII May 24 '23 at 15:10
  • I have found the sequence I was talking about, and I have also found its formula. $3 + (1000 \cdot 4^{z+1}) + 2(100 \cdot 4^{z+1}) + \sum_{k = 0}^{z + 1} 10 \cdot 4^k$ So seems like it seems to be following this pattern of 3s and 10s, but then suddenly in the branch I am talking about in this post, its suddenly 7 and 22, and back to 3 and 10. Which is strange, but this means we need to look at more sequences. Also, is the binomial theorem at play here, because of the 1, 2, 1 type thing we got here? Idk – Tsar Asterov XVII May 27 '23 at 03:20