Hacker News
new
|
past
|
comments
|
ask
|
show
|
jobs
|
submit
login
dclowd9901
on Dec 13, 2019
|
parent
|
context
|
favorite
| on:
Terence Tao Proves Result on the Collatz Conjectur...
What would it mean if they found a number — one number — that didn’t adhere to this rule?
bluGill
on Dec 13, 2019
|
next
[–]
You cannot find ONE such number. Either there is a loop that doesn't include 1, so you found a sequence of them. The other possibility if the sequence goes to infinity and so you found and infinite number of counter examples.
JoeAltmaier
on Dec 13, 2019
|
prev
|
next
[–]
Of course that's one way of proving this wrong. But you have to start above 18 quadrillion. Because all the numbers less than that have been tried.
3pt14159
on Dec 13, 2019
|
parent
|
next
[–]
Has anyone tried really, really large numbers picked at random?
JoeAltmaier
on Dec 13, 2019
|
root
|
parent
|
next
[–]
One approach. But I'd suggest it has less than a one-in-18-quadrillion chance of working. From the statistics so far.
gnode
on Dec 13, 2019
|
root
|
parent
|
prev
|
next
[–]
It's trivial to do. Here:
https://js.do/code/383036
mensetmanusman
on Dec 14, 2019
|
prev
[–]
How would you calculate the number sequence out to infinity?
dclowd9901
on Dec 23, 2019
|
parent
[–]
I guess my question was more “what could that mean?”
Guidelines
|
FAQ
|
Lists
|
API
|
Security
|
Legal
|
Apply to YC
|
Contact
Search: