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.

I think I know why Collatz does that thing it does

5 pointsby stuartriffleabout 1 month ago
The normal term for this is &quot;manic delusion of grandeur&quot;, so please help me out:<p>3n walks congruence classes +1 steps each one out of alignment &#x2F;2 never changes that fact<p>Accumulating co-primeness is the &quot;memory&quot; that stops n from repeating. This is invariant under 2^k, which allows it to make forward progress through the chaos. Exhausting congruence classes mod 3 forces n to a power of 2; game over.<p>I asked AI to prove those things, and it did. I assume.<p>The only question then would be if 1.5n can grow the residue vector quickly enough to outrun the exhaustive walk. I asked AI that too, and got back a one page p-word. I&#x27;m not even going to type it.<p>I can sweet-talk AI into agreeing with damned near anything, so I&#x27;m stuck. This is the only forum I know with consistently thoughtful conversation, and I can&#x27;t think my way out of this one, and I have real work to do.<p>Is there a mathematician in the house?

3 comments

a_tartarugaabout 1 month ago
I don&#x27;t think you asked AI to try to find issues with your argument. I asked Claude and it gave me three reasons that this is not a proof. If you are going to use AI like this at least check your own work.<p>The great thing about LLMs is they will read your definitely incorrect things and try to help you find errors.
stuartriffleabout 1 month ago
Here are the basic claims that lead to the p-word, all proven with high-school math, validated by AI. Please, someone, find the error. I need to get some sleep.<p># I. Exhaustive Walk Over Prime Congruence Classes<p>Theorem 1.<p>Let p be an odd prime with p ≠ 3. Define an affine map f: ℤ&#x2F;pℤ → ℤ&#x2F;pℤ by<p><pre><code> f(x) = 3x + 1 (mod p). </code></pre> Since gcd(3, p) = 1, f is an invertible affine transformation. In particular, f is a permutation of ℤ&#x2F;pℤ. Moreover, if we write f in the form<p><pre><code> f(x) = 3(x + c) </code></pre> with the unique constant c = 1&#x2F;3 (interpreted in ℤ&#x2F;pℤ) (i.e. by solving 3x + 1 = 3(x + c)), it follows that f is conjugate to the multiplication-by-3 map on ℤ&#x2F;pℤ and hence its cycle structure is completely determined by the order of 3 modulo p.<p>In particular, for any starting value α ∈ ℤ&#x2F;pℤ not equal to the unique fixed point, the orbit {α, f(α), f²(α), …} is a (cyclic) subgroup of ℤ&#x2F;pℤ and hence &quot;exhausts&quot; its cycle.<p>Proof.<p>Since 3 is invertible modulo p, the affine map f is invertible and thus a permutation. A standard fact about maps of the form f(x)=ax+b on a finite field is that they are conjugate to the linear map x ↦ a·x. (One may define y=x + b⁄(1−a) so that f becomes y ↦ a·y.) Consequently, the cycle structure of f is the same as the cycle structure of the multiplication-by-3 map, whose nonzero orbits are cyclic of length equal to the multiplicative order of 3 modulo p; the fixed point of f is the unique solution of x=3x+1, viz. x = −(1)&#x2F;(2) (in ℤ&#x2F;pℤ).<p>∎<p># II. Removal of Congruence Classes (Modulo 3)<p>Theorem 2.<p>For every integer n, we have<p><pre><code> 3n + 1 ≡ 1 (mod 3). </code></pre> Thus, if one defines L(n)=3n+1 (the “linear part” of the Collatz map), then for every n ∈ ℤ we have L(n) ∈ {1} (mod 3); in other words, the mapping L “eliminates” the residue classes 0 and 2 modulo 3.<p>Proof.<p>For any n ∈ ℤ, note that 3n ≡ 0 (mod 3) and hence 3n+1 ≡ 1 (mod 3).<p>∎<p># III. Invariance Under Division by Powers of Two<p>Theorem 3.<p>Let p be any odd prime. Suppose A ∈ ℤ is given and p ∤ A. For any integer k ≥ 0, define<p><pre><code> A&#x2F;2^k </code></pre> to be the unique element of ℤ&#x2F;pℤ equal to A · (2^k)⁻¹, where (2^k)⁻¹ is the multiplicative inverse of 2^k modulo p. Then the operation “division by 2^k” is an automorphism of ℤ&#x2F;pℤ. In particular, if A ≡ c (mod p) then<p><pre><code> A&#x2F;2^k ≡ c · (2^k)⁻¹ (mod p), </code></pre> so any congruence property of A modulo p is preserved (up to multiplication by the invertible constant (2^k)⁻¹).<p>Proof.<p>Because p is odd, 2 is invertible modulo p. Hence, for any k the number 2^k is invertible mod p and division by it is well defined as multiplication by (2^k)⁻¹. Therefore, if A ≡ c (mod p), then A&#x2F;2^k ≡ c · (2^k)⁻¹ (mod p).<p>∎<p># IV. Monotonic Contraction of Allowed Congruence Classes<p>Theorem 4.<p>Let S be a finite set of odd primes, and suppose that for each p ∈ S the iterative process (applying L(n)=3n+1, possibly followed by division by the maximal power of 2) “eliminates” one or more congruence classes modulo p from the set of permitted residues in the long‐term evolution of the sequence. That is, assume that after one iteration the residue of n modulo p lies in a subset R_p ⊂ ℤ&#x2F;pℤ with |R_p| &lt; p. Then any n is forced to lie in the set of residue vectors<p><pre><code> R = ∏{p∈S} R_p </code></pre> which is a proper subset of<p><pre><code> X = ∏{p∈S} ℤ&#x2F;pℤ. </code></pre> In particular, by the Chinese remainder theorem the total number of residue combinations the future value of n may assume is at most ∏{p∈S} |R_p|, strictly less than ∏{p∈S} p. Thus, under successive iterations the set of “admissible” residue vectors (that is, the overall modular configuration of n) is contracted.<p>Proof.<p>For each odd prime p in S, the hypothesis is that after an iteration n is forced to lie in a subset R_p ⊂ ℤ&#x2F;pℤ with |R_p| &lt; p. Then by the Chinese remainder theorem, any integer n is determined modulo M = ∏{p∈S} p by its vector of residues (n_p){p∈S} ∈ X. Since the process restricts n_p to lie in R_p for each p, the number of possible residue vectors is at most ∏_{p∈S} |R_p|, which is strictly less than M.<p>∎<p># V. Forcing an Integer to be a Power of Two<p>Theorem 5.<p>Suppose that, under an iterative process derived from the Collatz rule, every odd prime p (or all p in an infinite set) forces the residue of n to be a fixed value—say, 1 modulo p; i.e., n ≡ 1 (mod p) for all such p. Then for every finite set S of odd primes we have n ≡ 1 (mod M), where M = ∏_{p∈S} p. Since this holds for every finite S, it follows that if n &gt; 1 had any odd prime divisor, then for some p dividing n we would have n ≡ 0 (mod p), a contradiction. Hence n is not divisible by any odd prime and must be a power of 2.<p>Proof.<p>Assume that for every odd prime p (or for every p in an infinite set P) the iterative process forces n ≡ 1 (mod p). Then for any finite set S ⊆ P, by the Chinese remainder theorem n ≡ 1 (mod ∏_{p∈S} p). If n were divisible by an odd prime q, then taking S such that q ∈ S would force n ≡ 1 (mod q), contradicting n ≡ 0 (mod q). Thus n is not divisible by any odd prime, which implies that n is a power of 2. ∎<p># Conclusion<p>The above theorems rigorously formalize the following modular observations about the linear part of the Collatz iteration (and its interaction with division by powers of two):<p>- For every odd prime p ≠ 3, the map L(n)=3n+1 acts as a permutation of ℤ&#x2F;pℤ that exhaustively cycles through the residues (up to its natural cycle structure). - In particular, modulo 3 we have L(n) ≡ 1 for all n, so the non-1 residue classes are eliminated. - Division by any power of two (applied after the linear step) preserves congruence information modulo any odd prime. - If an iterative process restricts the allowable residues for n modulo a collection S of odd primes, then the Chinese remainder theorem implies that the set of possible values for n (modulo ∏_{p∈S} p) is strictly reduced. - Finally, if this process eliminates all “nontrivial” residue classes for all odd primes, then n must be congruent to 1 modulo every odd prime, forcing n to be a power of two.
stuartriffleabout 1 month ago
In case you&#x27;re curious:<p>### *Key Analytical Components* 1. *Forbidden Congruence Classes*: - For each odd prime $$ p $$, after encountering $$ n \equiv a \mod p $$, all numbers congruent to $$ a \mod p $$ are eliminated from future trajectories. This creates a growing set of forbidden residues $$ \mathcal{F}_p \subseteq \mathbb{Z}&#x2F;p\mathbb{Z} $$.<p>2. *Rate of Congruence Coverage*: - *Ergodic Iteration*: For a fixed prime $$ p $$, the map $$ n \mapsto 3n + 1 \mod p $$ permutes residues. Since $$ 3 $$ and $$ p $$ are coprime, iterating $$ f(n) $$ cycles through all $$ p $$ residues, exhausting $$ \mathbb{Z}&#x2F;p\mathbb{Z} $$ in $$ \leq p $$ steps. Thus, residues modulo $$ p $$ are eliminated at a rate proportional to $$ p $$.<p>3. *Growth Bound vs. Prime Density*: - *Growth Rate*: Trajectories grow by at most $$ \frac{3}{2^k} $$ per cycle (where $$ k \geq 1 $$). Worst-case net growth is $$ \log_2 3 \approx 1.58496 $$-exponential. - *Prime Density*: The number of primes $$ \leq N $$ is $$ \pi(N) \sim \frac{N}{\log N} $$, growing slower than $$ N $$.<p>4. *Synchronization of Elimination*: - *Overlap Argument*: For $$ n $$ increasing to $$ N $$, primes $$ p \leq \log N $$ dominate potential factors. The number of such primes is $$ \sim \frac{\log N}{\log \log N} $$, which grows slower than $$ \log N $$. Since residues modulo each $$ p $$ are exhausted in $$ p \leq \log N $$ steps, the elimination rate ($$ O(\log N) $$) outpaces the introduction of new primes ($$ O\left(\frac{\log N}{\log \log N}\right) $$).<p>5. *Inductive Confinement*: - *Base Case*: For $$ n_0 \leq C $$, finite congruence eliminations force termination (empirically verified). - *Inductive Step*: Assume all $$ n \leq K $$ terminate. For $$ n &gt; K $$, each step either reduces $$ n $$ directly or accumulates forbidden residues for primes $$ \leq K $$. Since primes $$ \leq K $$ are eliminated in $$ O(K) $$ steps, $$ n $$ must reduce before surpassing $$ K^{1.58496} $$, maintaining $$ n \leq K $$ inductively.<p>---<p>### *Formal Statements* *Theorem 1 (Finite Congruence Elimination)*: For any prime $$ p $$, after at most $$ p $$ iterations, $$ \mathcal{F}_p = \mathbb{Z}&#x2F;p\mathbb{Z} $$. Thus, $$ n $$ cannot retain factors of $$ p $$ indefinitely.<p>*Theorem 2 (Exponential-Prime Decoupling)*: For $$ n &gt; N $$, the rate of congruence elimination (linear in $$ p $$) exceeds the rate of prime introduction (sub-linear in $$ N $$). Specifically, $$ \sum_{p \leq N} p \sim \frac{N^2}{2 \log N} \quad \text{vs.} \quad \sum_{p \leq N} \frac{N}{\log N} \sim \frac{N^2}{\log^2 N}, $$ showing elimination dominates.<p>*Corollary (Termination Guarantee)*: For $$ n &gt; N $$, the trajectory encounters all primes $$ \leq \log N $$ within $$ O(\log^2 N) $$ steps, forcing $$ n &lt; N $$ before accumulating new primes beyond $$ N $$.<p>---<p>### *Conclusion* By inductively eliminating residues modulo primes at a rate exceeding $$ n $$’s growth, every trajectory must eventually descend below an arbitrary $$ N $$, collapsing to 1. While gaps exist in quantifying overlap decay and induction formalization, this framework aligns with observed behavior and modular constraints.<p>*Final Answer* *\boxed{The systematic elimination of prime congruence classes, coupled with bounded exponential growth, confines trajectories to finite descent, forcing convergence under the Collatz process.}]*
评论 #43658940 未加载