1

In the shortcut collatz function $$ T(x) = \begin{cases} \frac{x}{2} & \text{if } x \equiv 0 \pmod{2} \\[2ex] \frac{3x + 1}{2} & \text{if } x \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \end{cases} $$

The dropping time of $n$ is the number of steps it takes for $n$ to reach a value smaller than the initial seed. That would make the dropping time of $1$ undefined, so other way you could define the dropping time of $n$ is the number of steps it takes for $n$ to reach a number smaller or equal to the seed, but you need to apply the function at least once.

i.e. $$D(x) = \text{smaller $k$ such that } T^k(x) \le x \text{ for } k \in \mathbb{Z}^{+}$$

Acording to the OEIS sequence A020914, the allowable values that a dropping time can be are $\lfloor1 + n \cdot \log_2(3)\rfloor$, where can i find a proof for that?


Edit:

Also, for the non-shortcut version

$$ f(x) = \begin{cases} \frac{x}{2} & \text{if } x \equiv 0 \pmod{2} \\[2ex] {3x + 1} & \text{if } x \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \end{cases} $$

According to the OEIS sequence A122437, the allowable values of dropping time using this original function is $\lfloor 1 + (n - 1)\log_2(6) \rfloor$ which is the same as $\lfloor 1 + (n - 1)(\log_2(3) + 1) \rfloor$

a(n) is also the number of binary digits of 6^(n-1); for example, a(4)=8 since 6^(4-1)=216 in binary is 11011000, an 8-digit number. - Julio Cesar de la Yncera, Mar 28 2009

  • why not simply divide all twos out for the shortcut ? 2. How would we define the dropping time in the case of a divergent trajectory ?
  • – Peter Sep 25 '23 at 15:13
  • 1
    @Peter, no specific reason, it's just that dividing all the twos seems less 'algebraic'. If the trajectory is divergent, then there is no number $k > 0$ such that $T^k(x) \le x$, so it would be undefined. – Wagner Martins Sep 25 '23 at 15:32
  • 1
    To my knowledge, there is no proof of that. Terras used some tricks in his proof to overcome this (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4605249/collatz-conjecture-inquiry/4605272#4605272) – Collag3n Sep 25 '23 at 18:22
  • Not really a proof but if you consider the original sequence you have $n_k=\frac{3^k \cdot n +3^{k-1}+\sum\limits_{j=0}^{k-2}{\displaystyle3^j\cdot \displaystyle2^{\sum _{i=1} ^{k-1-j} {a_i}}}}{ 2^{\sum _{i=1}^{k} { a_i}}}$ if we fix the value of $ k$ for which $n_k<n$ the sequence A020914 refers to the number of bits in binary of $3^k$ . See also here – user140242 Sep 26 '23 at 16:17
  • Also see comments in https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3212129/a-possible-way-to-prove-non-cyclicity-of-eventual-counterexamples-of-the-collatz/3592741#3592741 – Collag3n Sep 28 '23 at 18:04
  • As said in the comment of the second OEIS sequence, "it does not account for the effects of the '+1'", meaning that it would be hard to prove equality – Collag3n Oct 04 '23 at 20:46