Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. The unnumbered statement headed "Periodicity Conjecture", p. 3, of Daniel J. Bernstein and Jeffrey C. Lagarias, The 3x+1 conjugacy map, Canad. J. Math. 48 (1996) 1154--1169, with label and page as printed in the authors' retypeset manuscript dated 15 February 1996, the edition read for the source card.
Statement
Throughout, is the function, for and for (1.1), and is the 2-adic shift, for odd and for even (1.2), both on the 2-adic integers (p. 1). The conjugacy map is the unique map with and (pp. 1--2). It is a solenoidal bijection: implies for every (p. 2), so it induces a permutation of (p. 3).
The paper notes that is known, and easily proved from formula (1.6) (p. 2, citing [2]). It then records the following conjecture as proposed in its reference [8].
Periodicity Conjecture (p. 3). "."
A trajectory is divergent when it contains infinitely many distinct elements, so that as (p. 3). The paper states three consequences or equivalents, none proved in this paper:
- the conjecture would imply that has no divergent trajectories on (p. 3);
- with for odd and for even , the conjecture is equivalent to the assertion that for all the function has no divergent trajectories on , which the paper says follows from [9, Corollary 2.1b] (p. 3);
- for any it is equivalent to (p. 3).
The paper leaves the conjecture open.
Proof pointer
No proof: the conjecture is open. The equivalence with the statement is credited to [9] (J. C. Lagarias, Acta Arith. 56 (1990), 33--53, Corollary 2.1b); the equivalence for is noted on p. 3 without a written proof.
Dependencies
The definition of and formula (1.6), p. 2.
Bears on
- Problem 1135: the problem's map is the paper's on the positive integers. By the paper's p. 3, the Periodicity Conjecture would imply that has no divergent trajectory on , so every orbit of would be eventually periodic. That excludes divergent orbits only: it says nothing about cycles of other than , so it would not by itself settle the problem. The conjecture is open, and the paper proves nothing toward it.