Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Statement

The two maps (p. 1). The 3x+13x+1 function is the map T:Z→ZT:\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z with T(x)=(3x+1)/2T(x)=(3x+1)/2 for x≡1(mod2)x\equiv1\pmod2 and T(x)=x/2T(x)=x/2 for x≡0(mod2)x\equiv0\pmod2 (abstract, and again in §1). The Collatz function, defined in §1, is C(x)=3x+1C(x)=3x+1 for x≡1(mod2)x\equiv1\pmod2 and C(x)=x/2C(x)=x/2 for x≡0(mod2)x\equiv0\pmod2; the bibliography states the 3x+13x+1 problem, or Collatz problem, as the task of proving that from any positive integer some iterate of CC takes the value 11.

3x+13x+1 Conjecture (p. 1, unnumbered), quoted from the abstract: "The 3x+13x+1 Conjecture asserts that each m≥1m\ge1 has some iterate T(k)(m)=1T^{(k)}(m)=1." Section 1 restates it on p. 1 in the same terms for every m≥1m\ge1. The abstract adds that the conjecture remains unsolved, as of the version read (dated January 1, 2011).

Source. Jeffrey C. Lagarias, The 3x+1 Problem: An Annotated Bibliography (1963-1999) (Sorted by Author), arXiv:math/0309224v13, p. 1 (the abstract and the opening of §1, which runs to p. 2), read on the page image. The edition read is identified on the source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: the two definitions and the conjecture were read clause by clause on the page image of p. 1. The conjecture is open; the bibliography proves nothing about it, and nothing here is independently reviewed.

Proof pointer

None: the statement is a conjecture, and the bibliography is a list of annotated works, not a research paper.

Dependencies

None.

Bears on

  • Problem 1135: the problem's map ff is the bibliography's TT restricted to the positive integers, and its question, whether every m≥1m\ge1 has some k≥1k\ge1 with f(k)(m)=1f^{(k)}(m)=1, is the bibliography's 3x+13x+1 Conjecture. The print does not restrict kk; the two readings agree, since for m≥2m\ge2 the iterate T(0)(m)=mT^{(0)}(m)=m is not 11, and for m=1m=1 one has T(1)=2T(1)=2 and T(2)(1)=1T^{(2)}(1)=1 (a remark of this page). The bibliography states the conjecture, records it as unsolved, and proves nothing about it.