3

Does anyone know the record for the number of steps a Collatz Conjecture run has taken to get to 1?

I have written a small program in Python to do the Collatz Conjecture on the Mersenne prime where n=5000 and produced a text file of ~88MB with a total step of 67378.

  • 2
    Do you mean the record , if an arbitary start value is allowed ? Or the record in the huge range that has been tested ? – Peter Feb 23 '21 at 16:07
  • 2
    Unfortunately, because Mersenne numbers have known Collatz trajectories that grow linearly with the exponent, this is 'uninteresting' — a run of arbitrary length could be produced. – Steven Stadnicki Feb 23 '21 at 16:10
  • @ peter Both really.

    @Steven I am studying Mathematics at university and this started as a bit of fun and I now want to push it. I know there is no real goal to doing it. It was a more mathematical curiosity.

    – Beta Raddish Feb 23 '21 at 16:11
  • 1
    OEIS probably shows the record holders upto extremely high values. With arbitary values, the problem is rather boring, since $2^n$ takes $n$ steps, so we can easily get a new record this way. More interesting are "small" numbers with "many" steps, the mersenne numbers seem to be hard to beat. – Peter Feb 23 '21 at 16:16
  • Thank you for the feedback. That is interesting about the small numbers. I just went with the Mersenne numbers because they popped up in a conversation and I was curious.

    I hope this question was not out of turn on the forum.

    – Beta Raddish Feb 23 '21 at 16:19

1 Answers1

2

A small caveat first: what counts as an 'iteration' of the Collatz process varies a bit from source to source. Because what happens at even numbers is 'boring', the most standard convention seems to be looking at the process as it relates to odd numbers specifically, taking $n\mapsto \dfrac{3n+1}{2^i}$, where $2^i$ is the largest power of $2$ that divides $3n+1$.

Now, we can think about how the Mersenne numbers map under this process. Suppose we start with $n_0=2^k-1$. Then we look at $3n_0+1$ and see that this is $3\cdot2^k-2$; dividing by $2$ once gives $n_1=3\cdot 2^{k-1}-1$. Unless $k=1$, this is also odd, so we have no more factors of $2$ to strip out.

And this repeats: $3n_1+1$ is $3^2\cdot2^{k-1}-2$, dividing by $2$ once gives $n_2=3^2\cdot 2^{k-2}-1$, and unless $k=2$ this will also be odd.

It should be clear how this process iterates; after $i$ steps we'll have $n_i=3^i\cdot2^{k-i}-1$, and this continues until $i=k-1$ and we get $n_{k-1}=3^{k-1}\cdot 2-1$. Then $3n_{k-1}+1=3^k\cdot2-2$, and dividing by $2$ gives $3^k-1$ — but note that now we can do at least one more division by $2$, so the expression for $n_k$ isn't quite so neat.

In general the iteration will get much messier from here, and there generally won't be any more 'clean' expressions for the results. But we can explicitly describe the first $k-1$ steps of the process this way, so producing a long chain of iterations is just a question of how much computing power you want to throw at it.

  • Thank you for the detailed explanation. This has given me some stuff to chew over and look at in detail.

    This little thing has been a learning project for fun. So I will take this info and see what I can do with it. Many thanks

    – Beta Raddish Feb 23 '21 at 17:55