TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Terence Tao Proves Result on the Collatz Conjecture

361 pointsby datashrimpover 5 years ago

33 comments

pg_botover 5 years ago
I got sucked into this problem as an undergraduate in mathematics. I similarly wanted to limit my search space and my initial work lead me down the path of prime factorization. If every prime number follows this pattern then logically every number also follows this pattern. Then you get to the hard part which is why or why not would a prime number follow this pattern. So then you go looking for the reasons why prime cycles can or cannot exist, your brain melts, and then you work on something else. Fun times though.
评论 #21781868 未加载
评论 #21781975 未加载
评论 #21782133 未加载
评论 #21785746 未加载
oefrhaover 5 years ago
Technical post from Terence Tao: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terrytao.wordpress.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;10&#x2F;almost-all-collatz-orbits-attain-almost-bounded-values&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terrytao.wordpress.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;10&#x2F;almost-all-collatz...</a><p>The paper: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1909.03562.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1909.03562.pdf</a>
wil93over 5 years ago
&gt; Tao used this weighting technique to prove that almost all Collatz starting values — 99% or more — eventually reach a value that is quite close to 1. This allowed him to draw conclusions along the lines of 99% of starting values greater than 1 quadrillion eventually reach a value below 200.<p>Isn&#x27;t this equivalent to saying that &quot;99% of starting values greater than 1 quadrillion eventually reach 1&quot;?<p>I mean, once you reach a value below 200 then you will continue and reach 1. Not only below 200, but below any limit that was experimentally verified (i.e. around 10^20)
评论 #21782386 未加载
评论 #21781422 未加载
评论 #21781749 未加载
评论 #21784241 未加载
评论 #21782335 未加载
评论 #21781667 未加载
vecterover 5 years ago
One of the aspects of math that I find beautiful is the deep connection between often seemingly unrelated topics. Connecting PDEs, which is a branch of analysis and what I consider &quot;continuous&quot; mathematics to something that seems to me like a discrete number theory problem is beautiful. The bit of intuition for why this might be the case in the article is nice:<p>&gt; With a PDE, you plug in some values, get other values out, and repeat the process — all to understand that future state of the system. For any given PDE, mathematicians want to know if some starting values eventually lead to infinite values as an output or whether an equation always yields finite values, regardless of the values you start with.<p>&gt; For Tao, this goal had the same flavor as investigating whether you always eventually get the same number (1) from the Collatz process no matter what number you feed in. As a result, he recognized that techniques for studying PDEs could apply to the Collatz conjecture.
评论 #21780656 未加载
评论 #21780398 未加载
knzhouover 5 years ago
Now that was a great example of an accessible, technically and culturally accurate article. For stuff like this, Quanta magazine is generally the world leader.
评论 #21780452 未加载
评论 #21780305 未加载
cyborgx7over 5 years ago
I can totally see how one could be sucked into this problem.<p>The solution seems immediately reachable. After giving it some thought, I can prove that it is equivalent to &quot;every number will at some point reach a power of 2&quot; because from a power of two you then go straight to 1 through divisions.<p>This result seems even more reachable since I no longer need to prove that numbers eventually get smaller.<p>I&#x27;m sure this is not a new discovery to people who have worked on the problem. But part of me really wants to spend the rest of the day puzzling around with where that approach goes.<p>Edit: Thought about it more. The two ways it doesn&#x27;t hit 1 would be for it to find a loop, that never hits a power of 2 or to grow infinitely.<p>Thinking about how a loop with 3n+1 and n&#x2F;2 would have to function, I think it&#x27;s probably pretty easy to prove that 4-2-1 is the only loop that is possible.<p>That leaves us with the infinite grows, but without ever hitting a power of 2.<p>Edit2: Turns out 4-2-1 being the only loop that is possible is actually not easy to prove at all and isn&#x27;t proven. But no matter, that wasn&#x27;t how I was going to continue working on the problem anyway.<p>The most promising solution to me is an inductive proof. Since I know all powers of 2 converge to 1 and only have &#x2F;2 applied to them, my next step is to find the properties of numbers n such that 3n+1 is a power of 2.<p>Only for every second power of 2 is this a whole number. The numbers for the powers of 2: [4, 16, 64, 256, 1024] have the possible precedents: [1, 5, 21, 85, 341]. Interestingly every subsequent number can be built from the previous one by 4n+1. Clearly it&#x27;s 4 because it&#x27;s every second power of 2. I feel like, if you recognize the structure of every number in the tree, you can prove that every natural number has one of those structures. And then you are done.<p>Once again, I&#x27;m completely aware none of this is original thought. But I enjoy it anyway.<p>Edit3: Every even number will be divided by 2 until it is an odd number. Now we only have to look at the structure of the odd numbers.
评论 #21780948 未加载
评论 #21780927 未加载
评论 #21780959 未加载
RcouF1uZ4gsCover 5 years ago
&gt; The Collatz conjecture is quite possibly the simplest unsolved problem in mathematics — which is exactly what makes it so treacherously alluring.<p>IMO that distinction actually belongs to Goldbach&#x27;s conjecture which is:<p>Every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes.
评论 #21784450 未加载
评论 #21784228 未加载
评论 #21784291 未加载
btillyover 5 years ago
See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terrytao.wordpress.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;10&#x2F;almost-all-collatz-orbits-attain-almost-bounded-values&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terrytao.wordpress.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;09&#x2F;10&#x2F;almost-all-collatz...</a> for a more detailed explanation.<p>His actual result is this.<p>Suppose that f(N) is a function from the natural numbers to the reals that has infinity as a limit. Let X be the set of natural numbers who eventually go below f(N). Then the logarithmic density of X is 1.<p>Here logarithmic density is the limit of the following ratio:<p><pre><code> sum(1&#x2F;n for n in X and &lt; N) &#x2F; sum(1&#x2F;n for n &lt; N) </code></pre> Now you just have to pick f that grows very, very slowly. For example f(N) = log(log(log(x)))).
nickcwover 5 years ago
A few years ago I got interested enough in this that I bought the book mentioned in the article &quot;The Ultimate Challenge: The 3x + 1 Problem.&quot;<p>If you want to see dead ends other people have gone down and read some actual results and learn some history it is a good read for the mathematically inclined. Some of the maths went over my head but I enjoyed it!
评论 #21782460 未加载
jbogganover 5 years ago
This was the problem that turned me from a music major to a math major and eventually led me down the path to computer science. It&#x27;s a beautiful and cold problem and I love to see any progress made on it.
bentonaover 5 years ago
It is hilarious to me that the thread about this &quot;Dangerous&quot; problem is full of approaches to solving it :)
jlaroccoover 5 years ago
It&#x27;s an interesting puzzle, but is there any significance to it?<p>Are there an infinite number of sequences like this, but with different numbers or different operations? Is there any value proving things about them? Seems like a shot in the dark looking at an arbitrary sequence and proving things about it.
评论 #21784334 未加载
评论 #21784270 未加载
atemerevover 5 years ago
I have a stupid question. If binary representations of numbers in the hailstone sequence for Collatz conjecture can be written as a 2-tag system (a → bc, b → a, c → aaa), and m-tag systems are Turing complete for m&gt;1, and Collatz conjecture is a sort of halting problem in this framework (there is a halting criteria), and &quot;deciding whether a particular algorithm for Turing machine will&#x2F;won&#x27;t halt on every input&quot; is a totality problem, which is also undecidable — can a proof of undecidability of Collatz conjecture be approached this way? What is the major problem with this line of thought?
评论 #21792998 未加载
scarejunbaover 5 years ago
That video at the top is very neat. Was it manually made or is there software that makes it easy to do?<p>Also which is the comment they&#x27;re talking about? I can&#x27;t seem to find an anonymous one talking about this on the original post <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terrytao.wordpress.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;08&#x2F;25&#x2F;the-collatz-conjecture-littlewood-offord-theory-and-powers-of-2-and-3&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terrytao.wordpress.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;08&#x2F;25&#x2F;the-collatz-conjec...</a>
评论 #21786650 未加载
评论 #21780431 未加载
评论 #21780469 未加载
评论 #21780436 未加载
odyssey7over 5 years ago
Huh, neat. I just read about this after seeing it as an example in UPenn&#x27;s CS 194 &quot;Introduction to Haskell&quot; notes.<p><pre><code> hailstone :: Integer -&gt; Integer hailstone n | n `mod` 2 == 0 = n `div` 2 | otherwise = 3*n + 1 </code></pre> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.seas.upenn.edu&#x2F;~cis194&#x2F;spring13&#x2F;lectures&#x2F;01-intro.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.seas.upenn.edu&#x2F;~cis194&#x2F;spring13&#x2F;lectures&#x2F;01-intr...</a>
评论 #21786095 未加载
评论 #21783935 未加载
archi42over 5 years ago
My initial idea is to go the other way around: We can count natural numbers using the successor function, starting at 1. E.g.: 1, s(1) = 2, s(s(1)) = s(2) = 3, and so on. So if we see a number n, we know it&#x27;s s(n-1), which is s(s(n-2)) and so on, until we reach 1. So we have a nice, linear chain, and it&#x27;s trivial to construct an algorithm f(n) [or more mathematically, a function f: N -&gt; {s,ss,sss,...}] that (i) produces the necessary operations to reach any given natural number n in that chain, starting at 1, and (ii) terminates for every input n.<p>Now we don&#x27;t use s(x), but instead two operations that are inverse to the Collatz rules: a(x) = 2*x and b(x) = (x - 1)&#x2F;3 (with b of course is not always being possible). Starting at 1, this can now be used to construct a tree containing &quot;some&quot; numbers, and we can use that it to describe a path to a number from the root.<p>If the conjecture holds, the tree constructed from these functions has to contain all natural numbers.<p>My nudge is then: If I have a number n, can I give an algorithm&#x2F;function f&#x27;: N -&gt; {a,b,aa,ab,ba,bb,...} that (i) finds a path to n, and (ii) always terminates? Answer: I have no idea =)<p>E.g.: f&#x27;(5) = aaaab &lt;=&gt; b(a(a(a(a(1))))).<p>So we have f&#x27;(1)=no idea how to represent, f&#x27;(2)=a, f&#x27;(3)=aaaabab, f&#x27;(4)=aa, f&#x27;(5)=aaaab, f&#x27;(6)=aaaababa, f&#x27;(7)=aaaabaaab[...], f&#x27;(8)=aaa,...<p>(However, maybe it is not possible to even construct f&#x27;: I believe the target space of f is of another infinity than the target space of f&#x27; -- obviously this isn&#x27;t my area of expertise).
评论 #21785278 未加载
devitover 5 years ago
It&#x27;s interesting that it seems that some very short propositions require very long proofs.<p>Are there any results on the length (or maybe Kolmogorov complexity) of the shortest proof for provable propositions of length N? (in a specific logic system, I suppose)<p>I.e. how hard to prove is the hardest proposition of length of N and how does it grow with N? how about the average random provable proposition?
huffmsaover 5 years ago
The question as I, not a mathematician, read it is<p>&gt; <i>For a given number, can using the operations 3n+1 and n&#x2F;2 make it converge to a value of 2^i</i><p>Because that&#x27;s what you need. If you can get on the <i>2^i</i> branch, you&#x27;ve won.
评论 #21781035 未加载
评论 #21780789 未加载
tester89over 5 years ago
&gt; In the 1970s, mathematicians showed that almost all Collatz sequences — the list of numbers you get as you repeat the process — eventually reach a number that’s smaller than where you started<p>I don’t understand why this doesn’t prove the conjecture. Like if you start with <i>x</i>, and you reach <i>y</i>: <i>y</i> &lt; <i>x</i>, then couldn’t one reäpply the quoted statement to show there exists <i>z</i>: <i>z</i> &lt; <i>y</i> &lt; <i>x</i> and wouldn’t iterating of this statement eventually lead to 1 &lt; … <i>z</i> &lt; <i>y</i> &lt; <i>x</i>
评论 #21786536 未加载
oneepicover 5 years ago
Just reading the summary of Collatz reminds me a whole lot of the Josephus problem. 3x+1 is a similar expression you&#x27;d see when you&#x27;re trying to enumerate indices in that problem. Dividing by two is similar to going once around the circle killing every other index. I wonder if that&#x27;s been explored?
AstralStormover 5 years ago
I suspect that about the only other class of numbers that could loop starts from a prime. (Because otherwise after a series of steps you could essentially run the procedure in parallel.) So you would have to find a specific class of prime numbers. This is darn hard to find ever.
ptahover 5 years ago
&gt; Then this past August an anonymous reader left a comment on Tao’s blog. The commenter suggested trying to solve the Collatz conjecture for “almost all” numbers, rather than trying to solve it completely.<p>maybe a time traveller nudging a result that will be significant for humanity&#x27;s future?
评论 #21780470 未加载
评论 #21780325 未加载
FrozenVoidover 5 years ago
What don&#x27;t they instead work from the opposite direction: Create an abstract model of a Collatz loop that doesn&#x27;t end with 1(instead looping back to same number) and prove it can&#x27;t exist(Reductio ad absurdum).
评论 #21788216 未加载
SubiculumCodeover 5 years ago
I know this is a fluff comment and meta, but I know many of us came here from &#x2F;. years ago. This article was put on &#x2F;. and comparing the comments of &#x2F;. and HN on this article really highlights how far &#x2F;. has fallen.
评论 #21785253 未加载
idclipover 5 years ago
I want to know who made that comment, what a unit.
jorgenveisdalover 5 years ago
Tao will be remembered 500 years from now.
paulpauperover 5 years ago
the proof if it exists will involve math is the very complicated and abstract and cutting-edge, similar to the proof of Fermat&#x27;s Last Thereon . It will involve some sort of result, I am guessing, from complex analysis an number theory and then generalized in such a way as to prove this result.
wyatt777over 5 years ago
Approximating almost up-to, is not rigorous proof in math, but looking forward to positive conjectures.
sidcoolover 5 years ago
The title seems to have been changed. Did he prove it for good or for most of the values?
dclowd9901over 5 years ago
What would it mean if they found a number — one number — that didn’t adhere to this rule?
评论 #21782079 未加载
评论 #21781403 未加载
评论 #21792350 未加载
jeromebaekover 5 years ago
Also known as hailstone problem from GEB
评论 #21780820 未加载
johnrobover 5 years ago
1 is the only number for which 3n + 1 = 4n. So a number that didn’t reduce to 1 would have to get stuck in a loop of multiple repeated values. That seems unlikely.
thetanilover 5 years ago
any even number can be divided by 2 until it reaches 1. any odd number ends in 1,3,5,7,9. Any of those numbers multiplied by 3 and added to 1 ends in an even number. I don&#x27;t get why this is hard?
评论 #21781596 未加载
评论 #21781665 未加载
评论 #21781644 未加载
评论 #21781595 未加载
评论 #21781587 未加载