4. Convergence Regularity Of Collatz Conjecture
If we calculate directly with odd through operation, the odd sequence built (called Sequence (1)) has no obvious convergence regularity, elements in the sequence vary sometimes big, sometimes small. But if we do operation as introduced in above section, convergence regularity of the odd sequence built (called Sequence (2)) is more obvious.
First, if add two corresponding elements in each step in these two odd sequences, should be exactly 2k(k is different with different elements). Such as
… in above example.
In general, first element in Sequence (2) is:
and first element in Sequence (1) is x:
, then
, is just the same form with Formula (2), and 2m should be the MSB+1 bit no. of x or a(along with the increase of a in Sequence (2), 2m should be the MSB+1 bit no. of a, because each corresponding part in Formula (2) is bigger than which in Formula (1)).
Below prove next elements also satisfy above regularity.
Suppose a in Sequence (2) and x in in Sequence (1) satisfy above regularity, and:
This states that the lowest bit of odd part of (3x+1) and (3a+2m+1-1) is equal, and add these two odd parts should be 2i(i<k).
Above regularity states that the original odd sequence has no obvious regularity is because it is only the partial part, not the whole part.
Second, research into odd multiplying 3, any odd can be written in binary form 1…1, both the highest and lowest bit is 1, after
, although total bit number increases, first substep is to shift bit 1 to the middle of the result, second substep may make carry to higher bit due to 1+1 in the middle of the result(1-bits in the middle of odd also satisfy this regularity). Both substeps are beneficial to our final goal, because we need many 1 bits in final result.
operation ensure succession 1 bits in the highest part, -1 operation reduce count of isolated 1 bits in the lowest part. Hence 0-bits in the odd part in t
i should shift right or bit-count reduce in each step, and its weight in total t
i should reduce step by step till to 0, when the odd part converges to 1...1. Build a simple weight model:
Where 2
2k is the corresponding adding part in t
i in that step. Because obviously
in each step, simply we can use w
i represent the weight of value of all 0 bits in odd part in t
i. We can also think
as the sum of t
i and its corresponding part in original sequence, the conclusion we final got is same. Specially, with any odd a, which highest bit is 2
m, define w
i for this odd:
Although the denominator may be bigger than which in Definition (1), the regularity is same.
Note: if odd is with form 1...1, without 0 bits, try to find its corresponding original odd strictly using method introduced above, if not found, abandon it, if found, ignore some previous steps till w(i) or w[a] is not equal to 0. Only weight function value of 11 is always equal to 0 till to convergence, it is not worth worrying about. These cases do not influence our research.
Observe wi, it should reduce step by step, and model value can and must converge to 0, because there is no possibility to exist a convergence value, which its corresponding odd part in ti is not 1...1, and its model value can remain unchanged in next steps through multiplying 3 operation and other two operations. Thus odd part must converge to 1...1, could not diverge or converge to other odds.
ti sequence in above example is: 9,42,188,816,3456,14336
odd part sequence is: 9,21,47,51,27,7
wi sequence is(according to Definition (1)):
(2+4)/4=1.5,(4+16)/16=1.25,64/64=1,(64+128)/256=0.75,512/1024=0.5,0/4096=0
Through above introduction we know, with odd we do operation in the Collatz Conjecture, on the contrast, with odd we do in above iteration method. We can easily prove that odd 1…10a(a is in binary base) is equivalent to odd 10a in second method, count of succession 1 bits in the head part only represent the iteration steps roughly.
In fact, only one case 0 bits in ti do not shift right or bit-count reduce when ti has not converged. This is:
101->1011.
This case wi do not change, both are 1/4, according to Definition (2). But next step 1011->11 , ti converges, hence this case is not worth worrying about.
Below we prove it strictly.
Suppose with odd a do
operation, and use x represent iteration steps.we can reform w
i as following(according to Definition (1)), the numerator part is exactly equal to 0 bits in t
i:
Obviously w(x) is continuous derivable when a in odd domain definition and x in positive integer domain definition, and is bounded(>=0).
Now we try to take the derivative of w(x).
Here the derivation definition of the numerator and denominator is: (y(x+1)-y(x))/(x+1-x).
Then the derivation of the numerator is:
The derivation of the denominator is:
Where b is the odd after odd a doing x steps
operation. that is:
Observe w’(x), we know when b>3 w’(x)<0, w(x) monotonically decreases. Only when b=1(this case should equal to 4), or when b=3, , W’(x)=0. Second case of b=3 is the except case introduced above, the corresponding odd part of ti is with form ‘101’, is not worth worrying about. First case is convergence case.
Totally, this kind of iteration calculation has these cases after doing as following:
Case 1: odd tail part decreases one bit, head part does not increase one bit, this case tail part should insert one bit of 1 and with zero or more 0 changing to 1, totally 1 bits weight should increase in tail part.
Case 2: odd tail part decreases one bit, head part increases one bit, if corresponding odd in sequence change bigger, is just because tail part carry one bit of 1 to head part; if corresponding odd change smaller, is just we need.
Case 3: odd tail part decreases two bits, head part does not increase one bit, tail part 0 bits should shift right.
Case 4: odd tail part decreases two bits, head part increases one bit.
Case 5: odd tail part decreases three or more bits, head part increases zero or one bit.
All these cases, w(x) function are decreased step by step except some cases introduced above.
Does it exist some odds which its wi tends to 0 but not equal to 0 forever? In fact, it exists some odds which 0-bits distribution are similar and wi decreases if they exist in same sequence. Such as, 10001 and 110001(+25) or 11000011(*4-1), 10001 and 1100001(insert 0). Because the operation limits the varying of the highest part of odd, these odds could not be possible to appear in the same sequence, also could not repeatedly appear.
For example:
10001->101001->1011101->11001011->11011->111, could not produce similar 0-bits distribution.
Below prove it from another view.
Suppose odd a is in operation sequence, its corresponding odd in operation sequence is b, which highest bit is 2m, then according to Definition (2), .
Next Step, b become odd c, then
, where 2
p is the lowest bit of odd part.
When a is big enough, for example a>=210+1, .
This means when odd in operation sequence is big enough, next step, wi is smaller than which multiply 0.751 in current step.
In above example, for first odd, , for other odds, , , , wi for all other odds is equal to or bigger than wi *0.5 for first odd.
Any odds have this same regularity. Because when the tail part of the odds remain unchanged or insert 0(any tail position), the numerator part is same or bigger than 2 times of original, and the denominator become same or 2 times of original, when the head part(successive 1 part) of the odds add one 1, the denominator become 2 times again, then the final value should be bigger than 0.5 times than original.
In above example, obviously, first odd could not become other odds in within 3 steps(case of huge odds is same). But 0.751*0.751*0.751=0.423564751<0.5, it is contradictious.
If steps increase, it is also not possible to become other odds, because if steps increase, count of 1 in head part should also increase, this consumes many steps, there are no enough steps left to finish the need deformation.
We know, normally if only think about varying of head part, it needs 2 or 3 steps periodly to finish adding one 1 to head part, if tail part carry one bit of 1 to head part , it minus 1 step. And tail part is not possible to carry 1 bit two times to head part when head part add two 1 successively, because each time head part add one 1 or tail part carry 1 bit to head part, highest part of tail part produces two more 0 bits, it could not produce carrying bit successively. This is to say, normally in long odd sequence, each time head part add one 1, it at least need about 2 more steps(we ignore odds needing only 1 step to add one 1 to head part in first step here, and we also ignore odds with form 10111(many many 1)..., because although this kind of odds need 2 steps to finish adding one 1 to head part successively during some steps, it decreases count of successive 1 in tail part after each step, this is not good for changing to similar 0-bits distribution).
We know loop odd sequence and divergence odd sequence both are long sequence which has much more than 4 elements(3 steps). Suppose any huge start odd a(its corresponding odd in sequence is bigger than 210+1), a add x bits of 1 in head part and become huge odd b with similar 0-bits distribution of a, it at least need y steps to finish. Then w[b] should be bigger than 0.5x times of W[a] from calculation directly, and should be smaller than 0.751y times of W[a] through iteration calculation character introduced in above. This is:
But, no matter whether the deformation is finished or not, only to finish adding enough bits of 1 to head part, it need at least more than 2x steps(about 2.5x steps), there is no enough steps to do tail deformation. So far, the needing steps from these two angles may be contradictious.
Hence it could not be possible to exist a sequence which exists a loop or wi tends to 0 but not equal to 0 forever when all odds in the sequence are big enough. Once one corresponding odd in sequence become smaller than 210+1, it become case of small odd, and all small odds can be proved to converge easily manually.