Timeline for Two reasons why the Collatz conjecture could fail
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2018 at 7:20 | comment | added | Gottfried Helms | unfortunately, in the wikipedia-entry they do not show how (and how far) small cycles are excluded aside from that of the specific $k$-cycle structure. With the knowledge of some lower bound $a_0 \approx 2^{60}$ (hope I recall that number correctly) cycles of respectable lengthes but of general structure (not only of $k$-cycles form) can unconditionally be excluded. | |
| Oct 20, 2018 at 17:12 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
was misleaded by the initial formulation "the existence of some cycles has been ruled out" may sound as "there's no cycle"
|
| Oct 20, 2018 at 15:53 | history | edited | Francesco Polizzi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 124 characters in body
|
| Oct 20, 2018 at 14:42 | history | edited | Francesco Polizzi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 20, 2018 at 14:14 | vote | accept | Dominic van der Zypen | ||
| Oct 20, 2018 at 14:12 | history | answered | Francesco Polizzi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |