Binary Representation of the Collatz Conjecture











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












What is the benefit of looking at the binary representation of the collatz conjecture. I know that it makes the computation easier because there is really one operation involved which is multiplying by 3. And then we simply shift the resulting binary number to the right if it hast Least significant bit (lsm) = 0



Does this offer a faster algorithm (complexity wise) ?



I know that the normal algorithm for collatz doesn't have an upper bound using Big Oh notation. (It's not analysable).










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    What is the benefit of looking at the binary representation of the collatz conjecture. I know that it makes the computation easier because there is really one operation involved which is multiplying by 3. And then we simply shift the resulting binary number to the right if it hast Least significant bit (lsm) = 0



    Does this offer a faster algorithm (complexity wise) ?



    I know that the normal algorithm for collatz doesn't have an upper bound using Big Oh notation. (It's not analysable).










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      What is the benefit of looking at the binary representation of the collatz conjecture. I know that it makes the computation easier because there is really one operation involved which is multiplying by 3. And then we simply shift the resulting binary number to the right if it hast Least significant bit (lsm) = 0



      Does this offer a faster algorithm (complexity wise) ?



      I know that the normal algorithm for collatz doesn't have an upper bound using Big Oh notation. (It's not analysable).










      share|cite|improve this question













      What is the benefit of looking at the binary representation of the collatz conjecture. I know that it makes the computation easier because there is really one operation involved which is multiplying by 3. And then we simply shift the resulting binary number to the right if it hast Least significant bit (lsm) = 0



      Does this offer a faster algorithm (complexity wise) ?



      I know that the normal algorithm for collatz doesn't have an upper bound using Big Oh notation. (It's not analysable).







      algorithms binary conjectures






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Apr 8 '15 at 8:12









      alkabary

      4,0791537




      4,0791537






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote













          It is natural to consider (and analyze) the Collatz map not as an operation on numbers but on strings. Most obvious candidates are the strings representing the numbers in bases $2$, $3$, and $6$. In base $6$ the Collatz map works like a cellular automaton, i.e., can be computed for the different digits "in parallel". The reason for this is the following: $>:!2$ and $>times3$ are the same in base $6$; furthermore the resulting carries have no long-range effects in this base. (Note that for multiplications or divisions in some base you usually have to work from the left or from the right and cannot decide on a particular digit until all digits to the left or to the right of it have been worked out and the remaining carry is determined.)






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
            – Jonathan Rayner
            Nov 22 at 10:35










          • @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
            – Christian Blatter
            Nov 22 at 10:46


















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          I don't know much about the second part of the question (speed of the algorithm in terms of complexity), but one advantage of the binary representation is that your "win" condition is clearly represented:



          "Does every natural number eventually reach the binary string $100dots 0$? "



          We can go a step or two further. Notice that if the string $n = 100dots 0$ appears, then the previous step was a string (of length one less than $n$) of the form



          begin{align}
          n-1 = 11dots1
          end{align}



          Multiplying by 3 in binary is the same as multiplying by the string $11$, which is the same as multiplying by $10 + 1$ and so we notice that



          begin{align}
          n-1 &= 11dots1\
          implies frac{n-1}{3} &= 1010dots 101
          end{align}



          where I have been lazy about indicating the length of the strings. We can then go further by padding with an arbitrary number of zeros:



          begin{align}
          2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) = 1010dots10100dots00
          end{align}



          which means that the next step after this replaces the trailing $100dots00$ part by $011dots11$:



          begin{align}
          2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) - 1 = 1010dots10011dots11
          end{align}



          and thereafter things get more complicated. One might argue that these patterns don't particularly get us far, but at the very least they don't appear as clearly in base 10, so perhaps there's some value in investigating binary.



          I like the idea of pursuing base 6 as mentioned in Christian Blatter's answer, although one disadvantage is that the price of simplifying our "step-by-step" computations is that our "win" condition becomes more obscured: the end goal is to reach the numbers $2^k$ and in base 6 their string representations don't follow a particularly "nice" pattern (or at least I don't think they do, maybe I'm wrong?)



          Perhaps roughly: base 6 may be advantageous in seeking to disprove the conjecture, while base 2 may be advantageous in seeking to prove the conjecture.



          (A lot of what I wrote was inspired by/confirmed by this post )






          share|cite|improve this answer























            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',
            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%2f1225170%2fbinary-representation-of-the-collatz-conjecture%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            3
            down vote













            It is natural to consider (and analyze) the Collatz map not as an operation on numbers but on strings. Most obvious candidates are the strings representing the numbers in bases $2$, $3$, and $6$. In base $6$ the Collatz map works like a cellular automaton, i.e., can be computed for the different digits "in parallel". The reason for this is the following: $>:!2$ and $>times3$ are the same in base $6$; furthermore the resulting carries have no long-range effects in this base. (Note that for multiplications or divisions in some base you usually have to work from the left or from the right and cannot decide on a particular digit until all digits to the left or to the right of it have been worked out and the remaining carry is determined.)






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
              – Jonathan Rayner
              Nov 22 at 10:35










            • @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
              – Christian Blatter
              Nov 22 at 10:46















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            It is natural to consider (and analyze) the Collatz map not as an operation on numbers but on strings. Most obvious candidates are the strings representing the numbers in bases $2$, $3$, and $6$. In base $6$ the Collatz map works like a cellular automaton, i.e., can be computed for the different digits "in parallel". The reason for this is the following: $>:!2$ and $>times3$ are the same in base $6$; furthermore the resulting carries have no long-range effects in this base. (Note that for multiplications or divisions in some base you usually have to work from the left or from the right and cannot decide on a particular digit until all digits to the left or to the right of it have been worked out and the remaining carry is determined.)






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
              – Jonathan Rayner
              Nov 22 at 10:35










            • @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
              – Christian Blatter
              Nov 22 at 10:46













            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            It is natural to consider (and analyze) the Collatz map not as an operation on numbers but on strings. Most obvious candidates are the strings representing the numbers in bases $2$, $3$, and $6$. In base $6$ the Collatz map works like a cellular automaton, i.e., can be computed for the different digits "in parallel". The reason for this is the following: $>:!2$ and $>times3$ are the same in base $6$; furthermore the resulting carries have no long-range effects in this base. (Note that for multiplications or divisions in some base you usually have to work from the left or from the right and cannot decide on a particular digit until all digits to the left or to the right of it have been worked out and the remaining carry is determined.)






            share|cite|improve this answer














            It is natural to consider (and analyze) the Collatz map not as an operation on numbers but on strings. Most obvious candidates are the strings representing the numbers in bases $2$, $3$, and $6$. In base $6$ the Collatz map works like a cellular automaton, i.e., can be computed for the different digits "in parallel". The reason for this is the following: $>:!2$ and $>times3$ are the same in base $6$; furthermore the resulting carries have no long-range effects in this base. (Note that for multiplications or divisions in some base you usually have to work from the left or from the right and cannot decide on a particular digit until all digits to the left or to the right of it have been worked out and the remaining carry is determined.)







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 22 at 10:44

























            answered Apr 8 '15 at 8:58









            Christian Blatter

            171k7111325




            171k7111325












            • Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
              – Jonathan Rayner
              Nov 22 at 10:35










            • @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
              – Christian Blatter
              Nov 22 at 10:46


















            • Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
              – Jonathan Rayner
              Nov 22 at 10:35










            • @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
              – Christian Blatter
              Nov 22 at 10:46
















            Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
            – Jonathan Rayner
            Nov 22 at 10:35




            Wondering: what do we mean by "carries" in the sense that "carries have no long-range effects in this base"?
            – Jonathan Rayner
            Nov 22 at 10:35












            @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
            – Christian Blatter
            Nov 22 at 10:46




            @JonathanRayner: See my edit. Hope it's clearer now.
            – Christian Blatter
            Nov 22 at 10:46










            up vote
            0
            down vote













            I don't know much about the second part of the question (speed of the algorithm in terms of complexity), but one advantage of the binary representation is that your "win" condition is clearly represented:



            "Does every natural number eventually reach the binary string $100dots 0$? "



            We can go a step or two further. Notice that if the string $n = 100dots 0$ appears, then the previous step was a string (of length one less than $n$) of the form



            begin{align}
            n-1 = 11dots1
            end{align}



            Multiplying by 3 in binary is the same as multiplying by the string $11$, which is the same as multiplying by $10 + 1$ and so we notice that



            begin{align}
            n-1 &= 11dots1\
            implies frac{n-1}{3} &= 1010dots 101
            end{align}



            where I have been lazy about indicating the length of the strings. We can then go further by padding with an arbitrary number of zeros:



            begin{align}
            2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) = 1010dots10100dots00
            end{align}



            which means that the next step after this replaces the trailing $100dots00$ part by $011dots11$:



            begin{align}
            2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) - 1 = 1010dots10011dots11
            end{align}



            and thereafter things get more complicated. One might argue that these patterns don't particularly get us far, but at the very least they don't appear as clearly in base 10, so perhaps there's some value in investigating binary.



            I like the idea of pursuing base 6 as mentioned in Christian Blatter's answer, although one disadvantage is that the price of simplifying our "step-by-step" computations is that our "win" condition becomes more obscured: the end goal is to reach the numbers $2^k$ and in base 6 their string representations don't follow a particularly "nice" pattern (or at least I don't think they do, maybe I'm wrong?)



            Perhaps roughly: base 6 may be advantageous in seeking to disprove the conjecture, while base 2 may be advantageous in seeking to prove the conjecture.



            (A lot of what I wrote was inspired by/confirmed by this post )






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I don't know much about the second part of the question (speed of the algorithm in terms of complexity), but one advantage of the binary representation is that your "win" condition is clearly represented:



              "Does every natural number eventually reach the binary string $100dots 0$? "



              We can go a step or two further. Notice that if the string $n = 100dots 0$ appears, then the previous step was a string (of length one less than $n$) of the form



              begin{align}
              n-1 = 11dots1
              end{align}



              Multiplying by 3 in binary is the same as multiplying by the string $11$, which is the same as multiplying by $10 + 1$ and so we notice that



              begin{align}
              n-1 &= 11dots1\
              implies frac{n-1}{3} &= 1010dots 101
              end{align}



              where I have been lazy about indicating the length of the strings. We can then go further by padding with an arbitrary number of zeros:



              begin{align}
              2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) = 1010dots10100dots00
              end{align}



              which means that the next step after this replaces the trailing $100dots00$ part by $011dots11$:



              begin{align}
              2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) - 1 = 1010dots10011dots11
              end{align}



              and thereafter things get more complicated. One might argue that these patterns don't particularly get us far, but at the very least they don't appear as clearly in base 10, so perhaps there's some value in investigating binary.



              I like the idea of pursuing base 6 as mentioned in Christian Blatter's answer, although one disadvantage is that the price of simplifying our "step-by-step" computations is that our "win" condition becomes more obscured: the end goal is to reach the numbers $2^k$ and in base 6 their string representations don't follow a particularly "nice" pattern (or at least I don't think they do, maybe I'm wrong?)



              Perhaps roughly: base 6 may be advantageous in seeking to disprove the conjecture, while base 2 may be advantageous in seeking to prove the conjecture.



              (A lot of what I wrote was inspired by/confirmed by this post )






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                I don't know much about the second part of the question (speed of the algorithm in terms of complexity), but one advantage of the binary representation is that your "win" condition is clearly represented:



                "Does every natural number eventually reach the binary string $100dots 0$? "



                We can go a step or two further. Notice that if the string $n = 100dots 0$ appears, then the previous step was a string (of length one less than $n$) of the form



                begin{align}
                n-1 = 11dots1
                end{align}



                Multiplying by 3 in binary is the same as multiplying by the string $11$, which is the same as multiplying by $10 + 1$ and so we notice that



                begin{align}
                n-1 &= 11dots1\
                implies frac{n-1}{3} &= 1010dots 101
                end{align}



                where I have been lazy about indicating the length of the strings. We can then go further by padding with an arbitrary number of zeros:



                begin{align}
                2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) = 1010dots10100dots00
                end{align}



                which means that the next step after this replaces the trailing $100dots00$ part by $011dots11$:



                begin{align}
                2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) - 1 = 1010dots10011dots11
                end{align}



                and thereafter things get more complicated. One might argue that these patterns don't particularly get us far, but at the very least they don't appear as clearly in base 10, so perhaps there's some value in investigating binary.



                I like the idea of pursuing base 6 as mentioned in Christian Blatter's answer, although one disadvantage is that the price of simplifying our "step-by-step" computations is that our "win" condition becomes more obscured: the end goal is to reach the numbers $2^k$ and in base 6 their string representations don't follow a particularly "nice" pattern (or at least I don't think they do, maybe I'm wrong?)



                Perhaps roughly: base 6 may be advantageous in seeking to disprove the conjecture, while base 2 may be advantageous in seeking to prove the conjecture.



                (A lot of what I wrote was inspired by/confirmed by this post )






                share|cite|improve this answer














                I don't know much about the second part of the question (speed of the algorithm in terms of complexity), but one advantage of the binary representation is that your "win" condition is clearly represented:



                "Does every natural number eventually reach the binary string $100dots 0$? "



                We can go a step or two further. Notice that if the string $n = 100dots 0$ appears, then the previous step was a string (of length one less than $n$) of the form



                begin{align}
                n-1 = 11dots1
                end{align}



                Multiplying by 3 in binary is the same as multiplying by the string $11$, which is the same as multiplying by $10 + 1$ and so we notice that



                begin{align}
                n-1 &= 11dots1\
                implies frac{n-1}{3} &= 1010dots 101
                end{align}



                where I have been lazy about indicating the length of the strings. We can then go further by padding with an arbitrary number of zeros:



                begin{align}
                2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) = 1010dots10100dots00
                end{align}



                which means that the next step after this replaces the trailing $100dots00$ part by $011dots11$:



                begin{align}
                2^k(frac{n-1}{3}) - 1 = 1010dots10011dots11
                end{align}



                and thereafter things get more complicated. One might argue that these patterns don't particularly get us far, but at the very least they don't appear as clearly in base 10, so perhaps there's some value in investigating binary.



                I like the idea of pursuing base 6 as mentioned in Christian Blatter's answer, although one disadvantage is that the price of simplifying our "step-by-step" computations is that our "win" condition becomes more obscured: the end goal is to reach the numbers $2^k$ and in base 6 their string representations don't follow a particularly "nice" pattern (or at least I don't think they do, maybe I'm wrong?)



                Perhaps roughly: base 6 may be advantageous in seeking to disprove the conjecture, while base 2 may be advantageous in seeking to prove the conjecture.



                (A lot of what I wrote was inspired by/confirmed by this post )







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Nov 23 at 13:44

























                answered Nov 22 at 12:56









                Jonathan Rayner

                9619




                9619






























                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    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%2f1225170%2fbinary-representation-of-the-collatz-conjecture%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

                    Ellipse (mathématiques)

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    Mont Emei