Besides the $3x + 1$ problem, for which similar problems are still unresolved regarding trayectory?












3












$begingroup$


Generalize the $3x + 1$ problem as $cx pm 1$, where $c$ is a positive odd integer and $x$ is a positive integer iterated through the function as far as possible to discover a cycle. If $x$ is even, then you halve it. But if $x$ is odd, you do either $cx + 1$ or $cx - 1$ as the case may be. (If you prefer, $c$ may be negative and you disallow $cx - 1$ for the odd branch; then $|-3x + 1|$ and $3x - 1$ are kind of the same).



With $3x - 1$ and $5x + 1$ it is somewhat well-known that many $x$ don't lead to 1, while with $3x + 1$ the question is unresolved despite intense scrutiny by many professionals and amateurs. For which other $cx pm 1$ is the question of ultimate arrival at 1 still undetermined despite study by more than a few people? I would appreciate journal articles that look at several different $cx pm 1$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This answer links to a few relevant papers which I've seen the results from, showing the undecidability of a generalization. (Though, it should be noted that the generalization of the Collatz conjecture studied in the first two papers is very broad, including cases that already make me suspicious - in the Collatz conjecture we, in a loose sense, expect "evenness" and "oddness" to be random and independent of the previous trajectory, whereas the examples used in those papers explicitly violate such arguments)
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 25 '15 at 2:52












  • $begingroup$
    I recall a comment of Gerry Myerson, saying that no nontrivial variant of the 3x+1-problem has a solution so far.(Unfortunately I didn't find that comment at the moment. Might be in mathoverflow or here in MSE in some questions tagged with "collatz")
    $endgroup$
    – Gottfried Helms
    Aug 25 '15 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    I don't know where I wrote it, either, but I'm happy to write it here again. To the best of my knowledge, no nontrivial variant of $3x+1$ has been solved. In particular, while it is widely believed that $5x+1$ generally goes off to infinity, I don't think there is any starting value of $x$ for which it has been proved to go off to infinity.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Jul 4 '18 at 6:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. However, there is a similar problem: the 7x±1 problem. As in the case of Collatz problem, it is conjectured that the orbit of arbitrary positive integer always reaches the cycle passing through 1.
    $endgroup$
    – DaBler
    Jul 26 '18 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DaBler So that would be $c = 7$ then? Thank you very much for that ArXiv link.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Soupe
    Jul 27 '18 at 2:53
















3












$begingroup$


Generalize the $3x + 1$ problem as $cx pm 1$, where $c$ is a positive odd integer and $x$ is a positive integer iterated through the function as far as possible to discover a cycle. If $x$ is even, then you halve it. But if $x$ is odd, you do either $cx + 1$ or $cx - 1$ as the case may be. (If you prefer, $c$ may be negative and you disallow $cx - 1$ for the odd branch; then $|-3x + 1|$ and $3x - 1$ are kind of the same).



With $3x - 1$ and $5x + 1$ it is somewhat well-known that many $x$ don't lead to 1, while with $3x + 1$ the question is unresolved despite intense scrutiny by many professionals and amateurs. For which other $cx pm 1$ is the question of ultimate arrival at 1 still undetermined despite study by more than a few people? I would appreciate journal articles that look at several different $cx pm 1$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This answer links to a few relevant papers which I've seen the results from, showing the undecidability of a generalization. (Though, it should be noted that the generalization of the Collatz conjecture studied in the first two papers is very broad, including cases that already make me suspicious - in the Collatz conjecture we, in a loose sense, expect "evenness" and "oddness" to be random and independent of the previous trajectory, whereas the examples used in those papers explicitly violate such arguments)
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 25 '15 at 2:52












  • $begingroup$
    I recall a comment of Gerry Myerson, saying that no nontrivial variant of the 3x+1-problem has a solution so far.(Unfortunately I didn't find that comment at the moment. Might be in mathoverflow or here in MSE in some questions tagged with "collatz")
    $endgroup$
    – Gottfried Helms
    Aug 25 '15 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    I don't know where I wrote it, either, but I'm happy to write it here again. To the best of my knowledge, no nontrivial variant of $3x+1$ has been solved. In particular, while it is widely believed that $5x+1$ generally goes off to infinity, I don't think there is any starting value of $x$ for which it has been proved to go off to infinity.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Jul 4 '18 at 6:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. However, there is a similar problem: the 7x±1 problem. As in the case of Collatz problem, it is conjectured that the orbit of arbitrary positive integer always reaches the cycle passing through 1.
    $endgroup$
    – DaBler
    Jul 26 '18 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DaBler So that would be $c = 7$ then? Thank you very much for that ArXiv link.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Soupe
    Jul 27 '18 at 2:53














3












3








3


2



$begingroup$


Generalize the $3x + 1$ problem as $cx pm 1$, where $c$ is a positive odd integer and $x$ is a positive integer iterated through the function as far as possible to discover a cycle. If $x$ is even, then you halve it. But if $x$ is odd, you do either $cx + 1$ or $cx - 1$ as the case may be. (If you prefer, $c$ may be negative and you disallow $cx - 1$ for the odd branch; then $|-3x + 1|$ and $3x - 1$ are kind of the same).



With $3x - 1$ and $5x + 1$ it is somewhat well-known that many $x$ don't lead to 1, while with $3x + 1$ the question is unresolved despite intense scrutiny by many professionals and amateurs. For which other $cx pm 1$ is the question of ultimate arrival at 1 still undetermined despite study by more than a few people? I would appreciate journal articles that look at several different $cx pm 1$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Generalize the $3x + 1$ problem as $cx pm 1$, where $c$ is a positive odd integer and $x$ is a positive integer iterated through the function as far as possible to discover a cycle. If $x$ is even, then you halve it. But if $x$ is odd, you do either $cx + 1$ or $cx - 1$ as the case may be. (If you prefer, $c$ may be negative and you disallow $cx - 1$ for the odd branch; then $|-3x + 1|$ and $3x - 1$ are kind of the same).



With $3x - 1$ and $5x + 1$ it is somewhat well-known that many $x$ don't lead to 1, while with $3x + 1$ the question is unresolved despite intense scrutiny by many professionals and amateurs. For which other $cx pm 1$ is the question of ultimate arrival at 1 still undetermined despite study by more than a few people? I would appreciate journal articles that look at several different $cx pm 1$.







number-theory reference-request collatz






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 25 '15 at 2:53









Milo Brandt

39.8k476140




39.8k476140










asked Aug 25 '15 at 2:40









Robert SoupeRobert Soupe

11.1k21950




11.1k21950








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This answer links to a few relevant papers which I've seen the results from, showing the undecidability of a generalization. (Though, it should be noted that the generalization of the Collatz conjecture studied in the first two papers is very broad, including cases that already make me suspicious - in the Collatz conjecture we, in a loose sense, expect "evenness" and "oddness" to be random and independent of the previous trajectory, whereas the examples used in those papers explicitly violate such arguments)
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 25 '15 at 2:52












  • $begingroup$
    I recall a comment of Gerry Myerson, saying that no nontrivial variant of the 3x+1-problem has a solution so far.(Unfortunately I didn't find that comment at the moment. Might be in mathoverflow or here in MSE in some questions tagged with "collatz")
    $endgroup$
    – Gottfried Helms
    Aug 25 '15 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    I don't know where I wrote it, either, but I'm happy to write it here again. To the best of my knowledge, no nontrivial variant of $3x+1$ has been solved. In particular, while it is widely believed that $5x+1$ generally goes off to infinity, I don't think there is any starting value of $x$ for which it has been proved to go off to infinity.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Jul 4 '18 at 6:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. However, there is a similar problem: the 7x±1 problem. As in the case of Collatz problem, it is conjectured that the orbit of arbitrary positive integer always reaches the cycle passing through 1.
    $endgroup$
    – DaBler
    Jul 26 '18 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DaBler So that would be $c = 7$ then? Thank you very much for that ArXiv link.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Soupe
    Jul 27 '18 at 2:53














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This answer links to a few relevant papers which I've seen the results from, showing the undecidability of a generalization. (Though, it should be noted that the generalization of the Collatz conjecture studied in the first two papers is very broad, including cases that already make me suspicious - in the Collatz conjecture we, in a loose sense, expect "evenness" and "oddness" to be random and independent of the previous trajectory, whereas the examples used in those papers explicitly violate such arguments)
    $endgroup$
    – Milo Brandt
    Aug 25 '15 at 2:52












  • $begingroup$
    I recall a comment of Gerry Myerson, saying that no nontrivial variant of the 3x+1-problem has a solution so far.(Unfortunately I didn't find that comment at the moment. Might be in mathoverflow or here in MSE in some questions tagged with "collatz")
    $endgroup$
    – Gottfried Helms
    Aug 25 '15 at 12:27










  • $begingroup$
    I don't know where I wrote it, either, but I'm happy to write it here again. To the best of my knowledge, no nontrivial variant of $3x+1$ has been solved. In particular, while it is widely believed that $5x+1$ generally goes off to infinity, I don't think there is any starting value of $x$ for which it has been proved to go off to infinity.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerry Myerson
    Jul 4 '18 at 6:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. However, there is a similar problem: the 7x±1 problem. As in the case of Collatz problem, it is conjectured that the orbit of arbitrary positive integer always reaches the cycle passing through 1.
    $endgroup$
    – DaBler
    Jul 26 '18 at 19:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DaBler So that would be $c = 7$ then? Thank you very much for that ArXiv link.
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Soupe
    Jul 27 '18 at 2:53








1




1




$begingroup$
This answer links to a few relevant papers which I've seen the results from, showing the undecidability of a generalization. (Though, it should be noted that the generalization of the Collatz conjecture studied in the first two papers is very broad, including cases that already make me suspicious - in the Collatz conjecture we, in a loose sense, expect "evenness" and "oddness" to be random and independent of the previous trajectory, whereas the examples used in those papers explicitly violate such arguments)
$endgroup$
– Milo Brandt
Aug 25 '15 at 2:52






$begingroup$
This answer links to a few relevant papers which I've seen the results from, showing the undecidability of a generalization. (Though, it should be noted that the generalization of the Collatz conjecture studied in the first two papers is very broad, including cases that already make me suspicious - in the Collatz conjecture we, in a loose sense, expect "evenness" and "oddness" to be random and independent of the previous trajectory, whereas the examples used in those papers explicitly violate such arguments)
$endgroup$
– Milo Brandt
Aug 25 '15 at 2:52














$begingroup$
I recall a comment of Gerry Myerson, saying that no nontrivial variant of the 3x+1-problem has a solution so far.(Unfortunately I didn't find that comment at the moment. Might be in mathoverflow or here in MSE in some questions tagged with "collatz")
$endgroup$
– Gottfried Helms
Aug 25 '15 at 12:27




$begingroup$
I recall a comment of Gerry Myerson, saying that no nontrivial variant of the 3x+1-problem has a solution so far.(Unfortunately I didn't find that comment at the moment. Might be in mathoverflow or here in MSE in some questions tagged with "collatz")
$endgroup$
– Gottfried Helms
Aug 25 '15 at 12:27












$begingroup$
I don't know where I wrote it, either, but I'm happy to write it here again. To the best of my knowledge, no nontrivial variant of $3x+1$ has been solved. In particular, while it is widely believed that $5x+1$ generally goes off to infinity, I don't think there is any starting value of $x$ for which it has been proved to go off to infinity.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 4 '18 at 6:45




$begingroup$
I don't know where I wrote it, either, but I'm happy to write it here again. To the best of my knowledge, no nontrivial variant of $3x+1$ has been solved. In particular, while it is widely believed that $5x+1$ generally goes off to infinity, I don't think there is any starting value of $x$ for which it has been proved to go off to infinity.
$endgroup$
– Gerry Myerson
Jul 4 '18 at 6:45




1




1




$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. However, there is a similar problem: the 7x±1 problem. As in the case of Collatz problem, it is conjectured that the orbit of arbitrary positive integer always reaches the cycle passing through 1.
$endgroup$
– DaBler
Jul 26 '18 at 19:13




$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for. However, there is a similar problem: the 7x±1 problem. As in the case of Collatz problem, it is conjectured that the orbit of arbitrary positive integer always reaches the cycle passing through 1.
$endgroup$
– DaBler
Jul 26 '18 at 19:13




1




1




$begingroup$
@DaBler So that would be $c = 7$ then? Thank you very much for that ArXiv link.
$endgroup$
– Robert Soupe
Jul 27 '18 at 2:53




$begingroup$
@DaBler So that would be $c = 7$ then? Thank you very much for that ArXiv link.
$endgroup$
– Robert Soupe
Jul 27 '18 at 2:53










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

upps:[update] I've just recently given the same answer in this question, maybe I'd delete this or the other one




I've done some search for this question and arrived at the following (listing only the odd numbers in an orbit):


  • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C-1= {3,7,15,31,63,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $1 to 1$.

  • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C+1= {3,5,9,17,33,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $-1 to -1$.

  • $c=3$ has some extra cycles in the negative numbers, I've found none other than that known for instance in wikipedia

  • $c=5$ has some extra cycles in the positive numbers, I've found only the two well known ones ($17 to 43 to 27 to 17 $ and $13 to 33 to 83 to 13 $ )

  • $c=181$ ( $=lceil 2^{15/2} rceil-1$ ) has two cycles $27to 611to 27$ and $35 to 99 to 35$


I've searched in two modes : all odd numbers up to 9999 for $c$ checking possible cycle-lengthes up to 100 ; possible cycle lengthes up to 1000 (I think, have it not at hand at the moment) and optimal $c$ using the convergents of continued fractions excluding even extremely high $c$ requiring elements of a possible cycle $a_k$ below some upper bound taken by some formula depending on $c$ and projected cyclelength.



I've even taken negative values for $c$ and found some more cycles on small numbers but have it not at hand at the moment (but see some recent MSE-answer of mine)






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    2





    +250







    $begingroup$

    Here are some references to the problem $qx+1$, for example:




    • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd.. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(3), (1981), 285-288

    • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd. II. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(4), (1981), 293-296


    Author shows that for $q=5$ there is only one non-trivial cycle ($13to 208 to 13$), while for $q=7$ there are no non-trivial cycles.




    • R. E. Crandall. On the "$3x+1$" Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 32, (1978), 1281-1292.


    Here Crandall conjectured that for all $q geq 5$, there always exist some $n$ that never iterate to $1$.




    • Z. Franco and C. Pomerance. On a Conjecture of Crandall concerning the $px+1$ Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 64(211), (1995), 1333-1336.


    Here they show that Crandall conjecture is true if $q$ is a Wieferich number.



    For exhaustive references on the problem I recommend to check The Ultimate Challenge: The $3x+1$ Problem by Jeffrey C. Lagarias. Point of the book is to summarize all results and references to the problem, so it seems a good place to start (the references for $qx+1$ are taken from there).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
      $endgroup$
      – rukhin
      Jan 21 at 1:28



















    0












    $begingroup$

    Here is one:



    Consider the following operation on an arbitrary positive integer:



    If the number is divisible by 12, divide it by 12.



    If the number is divisible by 10, divide it by 10.



    If the number is divisible by 8, divide it by 8.



    If the number is divisible by 6, divide it by 6.



    If the number is divisible by 4, divide it by 4.



    If the number is divisible by 2, divide it by 2.



    If the number is odd, multiply it by 5 and add 1.



    The tests should be performed in this order.



    The conjecture is: This process will eventually reach the number 1, regardless of which positive integer is chosen initially.



    This can be tested by running this simple python script:



    #!/usr/bin/python

    for i in range(2,1000):
    x = i
    while x != 1:
    print "{0}, ".format(x),
    if x % 12 == 0:
    x = x / 12
    elif x % 10 == 0:
    x = x / 10
    elif x % 8 == 0:
    x = x / 8
    elif x % 6 == 0:
    x = x / 6
    elif x % 4 == 0:
    x = x / 4
    elif x % 2 == 0:
    x = x / 2
    else:
    x = 5 * x + 1
    print "n"





    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1408656%2fbesides-the-3x-1-problem-for-which-similar-problems-are-still-unresolved-re%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      upps:[update] I've just recently given the same answer in this question, maybe I'd delete this or the other one




      I've done some search for this question and arrived at the following (listing only the odd numbers in an orbit):


      • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C-1= {3,7,15,31,63,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $1 to 1$.

      • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C+1= {3,5,9,17,33,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $-1 to -1$.

      • $c=3$ has some extra cycles in the negative numbers, I've found none other than that known for instance in wikipedia

      • $c=5$ has some extra cycles in the positive numbers, I've found only the two well known ones ($17 to 43 to 27 to 17 $ and $13 to 33 to 83 to 13 $ )

      • $c=181$ ( $=lceil 2^{15/2} rceil-1$ ) has two cycles $27to 611to 27$ and $35 to 99 to 35$


      I've searched in two modes : all odd numbers up to 9999 for $c$ checking possible cycle-lengthes up to 100 ; possible cycle lengthes up to 1000 (I think, have it not at hand at the moment) and optimal $c$ using the convergents of continued fractions excluding even extremely high $c$ requiring elements of a possible cycle $a_k$ below some upper bound taken by some formula depending on $c$ and projected cyclelength.



      I've even taken negative values for $c$ and found some more cycles on small numbers but have it not at hand at the moment (but see some recent MSE-answer of mine)






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        6












        $begingroup$

        upps:[update] I've just recently given the same answer in this question, maybe I'd delete this or the other one




        I've done some search for this question and arrived at the following (listing only the odd numbers in an orbit):


        • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C-1= {3,7,15,31,63,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $1 to 1$.

        • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C+1= {3,5,9,17,33,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $-1 to -1$.

        • $c=3$ has some extra cycles in the negative numbers, I've found none other than that known for instance in wikipedia

        • $c=5$ has some extra cycles in the positive numbers, I've found only the two well known ones ($17 to 43 to 27 to 17 $ and $13 to 33 to 83 to 13 $ )

        • $c=181$ ( $=lceil 2^{15/2} rceil-1$ ) has two cycles $27to 611to 27$ and $35 to 99 to 35$


        I've searched in two modes : all odd numbers up to 9999 for $c$ checking possible cycle-lengthes up to 100 ; possible cycle lengthes up to 1000 (I think, have it not at hand at the moment) and optimal $c$ using the convergents of continued fractions excluding even extremely high $c$ requiring elements of a possible cycle $a_k$ below some upper bound taken by some formula depending on $c$ and projected cyclelength.



        I've even taken negative values for $c$ and found some more cycles on small numbers but have it not at hand at the moment (but see some recent MSE-answer of mine)






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          upps:[update] I've just recently given the same answer in this question, maybe I'd delete this or the other one




          I've done some search for this question and arrived at the following (listing only the odd numbers in an orbit):


          • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C-1= {3,7,15,31,63,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $1 to 1$.

          • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C+1= {3,5,9,17,33,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $-1 to -1$.

          • $c=3$ has some extra cycles in the negative numbers, I've found none other than that known for instance in wikipedia

          • $c=5$ has some extra cycles in the positive numbers, I've found only the two well known ones ($17 to 43 to 27 to 17 $ and $13 to 33 to 83 to 13 $ )

          • $c=181$ ( $=lceil 2^{15/2} rceil-1$ ) has two cycles $27to 611to 27$ and $35 to 99 to 35$


          I've searched in two modes : all odd numbers up to 9999 for $c$ checking possible cycle-lengthes up to 100 ; possible cycle lengthes up to 1000 (I think, have it not at hand at the moment) and optimal $c$ using the convergents of continued fractions excluding even extremely high $c$ requiring elements of a possible cycle $a_k$ below some upper bound taken by some formula depending on $c$ and projected cyclelength.



          I've even taken negative values for $c$ and found some more cycles on small numbers but have it not at hand at the moment (but see some recent MSE-answer of mine)






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          upps:[update] I've just recently given the same answer in this question, maybe I'd delete this or the other one




          I've done some search for this question and arrived at the following (listing only the odd numbers in an orbit):


          • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C-1= {3,7,15,31,63,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $1 to 1$.

          • All $c$ of the form $c=2^C+1= {3,5,9,17,33,....}$ have a "trivial cycle" at $-1 to -1$.

          • $c=3$ has some extra cycles in the negative numbers, I've found none other than that known for instance in wikipedia

          • $c=5$ has some extra cycles in the positive numbers, I've found only the two well known ones ($17 to 43 to 27 to 17 $ and $13 to 33 to 83 to 13 $ )

          • $c=181$ ( $=lceil 2^{15/2} rceil-1$ ) has two cycles $27to 611to 27$ and $35 to 99 to 35$


          I've searched in two modes : all odd numbers up to 9999 for $c$ checking possible cycle-lengthes up to 100 ; possible cycle lengthes up to 1000 (I think, have it not at hand at the moment) and optimal $c$ using the convergents of continued fractions excluding even extremely high $c$ requiring elements of a possible cycle $a_k$ below some upper bound taken by some formula depending on $c$ and projected cyclelength.



          I've even taken negative values for $c$ and found some more cycles on small numbers but have it not at hand at the moment (but see some recent MSE-answer of mine)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jul 4 '18 at 6:39

























          answered Jul 4 '18 at 6:20









          Gottfried HelmsGottfried Helms

          23.4k24598




          23.4k24598























              2





              +250







              $begingroup$

              Here are some references to the problem $qx+1$, for example:




              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd.. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(3), (1981), 285-288

              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd. II. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(4), (1981), 293-296


              Author shows that for $q=5$ there is only one non-trivial cycle ($13to 208 to 13$), while for $q=7$ there are no non-trivial cycles.




              • R. E. Crandall. On the "$3x+1$" Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 32, (1978), 1281-1292.


              Here Crandall conjectured that for all $q geq 5$, there always exist some $n$ that never iterate to $1$.




              • Z. Franco and C. Pomerance. On a Conjecture of Crandall concerning the $px+1$ Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 64(211), (1995), 1333-1336.


              Here they show that Crandall conjecture is true if $q$ is a Wieferich number.



              For exhaustive references on the problem I recommend to check The Ultimate Challenge: The $3x+1$ Problem by Jeffrey C. Lagarias. Point of the book is to summarize all results and references to the problem, so it seems a good place to start (the references for $qx+1$ are taken from there).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
                $endgroup$
                – rukhin
                Jan 21 at 1:28
















              2





              +250







              $begingroup$

              Here are some references to the problem $qx+1$, for example:




              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd.. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(3), (1981), 285-288

              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd. II. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(4), (1981), 293-296


              Author shows that for $q=5$ there is only one non-trivial cycle ($13to 208 to 13$), while for $q=7$ there are no non-trivial cycles.




              • R. E. Crandall. On the "$3x+1$" Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 32, (1978), 1281-1292.


              Here Crandall conjectured that for all $q geq 5$, there always exist some $n$ that never iterate to $1$.




              • Z. Franco and C. Pomerance. On a Conjecture of Crandall concerning the $px+1$ Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 64(211), (1995), 1333-1336.


              Here they show that Crandall conjecture is true if $q$ is a Wieferich number.



              For exhaustive references on the problem I recommend to check The Ultimate Challenge: The $3x+1$ Problem by Jeffrey C. Lagarias. Point of the book is to summarize all results and references to the problem, so it seems a good place to start (the references for $qx+1$ are taken from there).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
                $endgroup$
                – rukhin
                Jan 21 at 1:28














              2





              +250







              2





              +250



              2




              +250



              $begingroup$

              Here are some references to the problem $qx+1$, for example:




              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd.. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(3), (1981), 285-288

              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd. II. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(4), (1981), 293-296


              Author shows that for $q=5$ there is only one non-trivial cycle ($13to 208 to 13$), while for $q=7$ there are no non-trivial cycles.




              • R. E. Crandall. On the "$3x+1$" Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 32, (1978), 1281-1292.


              Here Crandall conjectured that for all $q geq 5$, there always exist some $n$ that never iterate to $1$.




              • Z. Franco and C. Pomerance. On a Conjecture of Crandall concerning the $px+1$ Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 64(211), (1995), 1333-1336.


              Here they show that Crandall conjecture is true if $q$ is a Wieferich number.



              For exhaustive references on the problem I recommend to check The Ultimate Challenge: The $3x+1$ Problem by Jeffrey C. Lagarias. Point of the book is to summarize all results and references to the problem, so it seems a good place to start (the references for $qx+1$ are taken from there).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Here are some references to the problem $qx+1$, for example:




              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd.. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(3), (1981), 285-288

              • R.Steiner. On the "$QX+1$ problem", $Q$ odd. II. Fibonacci Quarterly, 19(4), (1981), 293-296


              Author shows that for $q=5$ there is only one non-trivial cycle ($13to 208 to 13$), while for $q=7$ there are no non-trivial cycles.




              • R. E. Crandall. On the "$3x+1$" Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 32, (1978), 1281-1292.


              Here Crandall conjectured that for all $q geq 5$, there always exist some $n$ that never iterate to $1$.




              • Z. Franco and C. Pomerance. On a Conjecture of Crandall concerning the $px+1$ Problem. Mathematics of Computation, 64(211), (1995), 1333-1336.


              Here they show that Crandall conjecture is true if $q$ is a Wieferich number.



              For exhaustive references on the problem I recommend to check The Ultimate Challenge: The $3x+1$ Problem by Jeffrey C. Lagarias. Point of the book is to summarize all results and references to the problem, so it seems a good place to start (the references for $qx+1$ are taken from there).







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Jul 8 '18 at 16:25









              SilSil

              5,15121643




              5,15121643












              • $begingroup$
                This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
                $endgroup$
                – rukhin
                Jan 21 at 1:28


















              • $begingroup$
                This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
                $endgroup$
                – rukhin
                Jan 21 at 1:28
















              $begingroup$
              This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
              $endgroup$
              – rukhin
              Jan 21 at 1:28




              $begingroup$
              This is not correct: Steiner demonstrates the nonexistence of circuits--cycles of a special form.
              $endgroup$
              – rukhin
              Jan 21 at 1:28











              0












              $begingroup$

              Here is one:



              Consider the following operation on an arbitrary positive integer:



              If the number is divisible by 12, divide it by 12.



              If the number is divisible by 10, divide it by 10.



              If the number is divisible by 8, divide it by 8.



              If the number is divisible by 6, divide it by 6.



              If the number is divisible by 4, divide it by 4.



              If the number is divisible by 2, divide it by 2.



              If the number is odd, multiply it by 5 and add 1.



              The tests should be performed in this order.



              The conjecture is: This process will eventually reach the number 1, regardless of which positive integer is chosen initially.



              This can be tested by running this simple python script:



              #!/usr/bin/python

              for i in range(2,1000):
              x = i
              while x != 1:
              print "{0}, ".format(x),
              if x % 12 == 0:
              x = x / 12
              elif x % 10 == 0:
              x = x / 10
              elif x % 8 == 0:
              x = x / 8
              elif x % 6 == 0:
              x = x / 6
              elif x % 4 == 0:
              x = x / 4
              elif x % 2 == 0:
              x = x / 2
              else:
              x = 5 * x + 1
              print "n"





              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                Here is one:



                Consider the following operation on an arbitrary positive integer:



                If the number is divisible by 12, divide it by 12.



                If the number is divisible by 10, divide it by 10.



                If the number is divisible by 8, divide it by 8.



                If the number is divisible by 6, divide it by 6.



                If the number is divisible by 4, divide it by 4.



                If the number is divisible by 2, divide it by 2.



                If the number is odd, multiply it by 5 and add 1.



                The tests should be performed in this order.



                The conjecture is: This process will eventually reach the number 1, regardless of which positive integer is chosen initially.



                This can be tested by running this simple python script:



                #!/usr/bin/python

                for i in range(2,1000):
                x = i
                while x != 1:
                print "{0}, ".format(x),
                if x % 12 == 0:
                x = x / 12
                elif x % 10 == 0:
                x = x / 10
                elif x % 8 == 0:
                x = x / 8
                elif x % 6 == 0:
                x = x / 6
                elif x % 4 == 0:
                x = x / 4
                elif x % 2 == 0:
                x = x / 2
                else:
                x = 5 * x + 1
                print "n"





                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Here is one:



                  Consider the following operation on an arbitrary positive integer:



                  If the number is divisible by 12, divide it by 12.



                  If the number is divisible by 10, divide it by 10.



                  If the number is divisible by 8, divide it by 8.



                  If the number is divisible by 6, divide it by 6.



                  If the number is divisible by 4, divide it by 4.



                  If the number is divisible by 2, divide it by 2.



                  If the number is odd, multiply it by 5 and add 1.



                  The tests should be performed in this order.



                  The conjecture is: This process will eventually reach the number 1, regardless of which positive integer is chosen initially.



                  This can be tested by running this simple python script:



                  #!/usr/bin/python

                  for i in range(2,1000):
                  x = i
                  while x != 1:
                  print "{0}, ".format(x),
                  if x % 12 == 0:
                  x = x / 12
                  elif x % 10 == 0:
                  x = x / 10
                  elif x % 8 == 0:
                  x = x / 8
                  elif x % 6 == 0:
                  x = x / 6
                  elif x % 4 == 0:
                  x = x / 4
                  elif x % 2 == 0:
                  x = x / 2
                  else:
                  x = 5 * x + 1
                  print "n"





                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Here is one:



                  Consider the following operation on an arbitrary positive integer:



                  If the number is divisible by 12, divide it by 12.



                  If the number is divisible by 10, divide it by 10.



                  If the number is divisible by 8, divide it by 8.



                  If the number is divisible by 6, divide it by 6.



                  If the number is divisible by 4, divide it by 4.



                  If the number is divisible by 2, divide it by 2.



                  If the number is odd, multiply it by 5 and add 1.



                  The tests should be performed in this order.



                  The conjecture is: This process will eventually reach the number 1, regardless of which positive integer is chosen initially.



                  This can be tested by running this simple python script:



                  #!/usr/bin/python

                  for i in range(2,1000):
                  x = i
                  while x != 1:
                  print "{0}, ".format(x),
                  if x % 12 == 0:
                  x = x / 12
                  elif x % 10 == 0:
                  x = x / 10
                  elif x % 8 == 0:
                  x = x / 8
                  elif x % 6 == 0:
                  x = x / 6
                  elif x % 4 == 0:
                  x = x / 4
                  elif x % 2 == 0:
                  x = x / 2
                  else:
                  x = 5 * x + 1
                  print "n"






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 6 at 2:17









                  Marcus ScipioMarcus Scipio

                  244




                  244






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1408656%2fbesides-the-3x-1-problem-for-which-similar-problems-are-still-unresolved-re%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Human spaceflight

                      Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                      File:DeusFollowingSea.jpg