What does proving the Collatz Conjecture entail?

From the get go: i'm not trying to prove the Collatz Conjecture where hundreds of smarter people have failed. I'm just curious.

I'm wondering where one would have to start in proving the Collatz Conjecture. That is, based on the nature of the problem, what's the starting point for attempting to prove it? I know that it can be represented in many forms as an equation(that you'd have to recurse over): \begin{align*} f(x) &= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} n/2 &\text{if }n=0\bmod2 \\ 3n+1 &\text{if }n=1 \bmod2 \end{array} \right.\\ \strut\\ a_i&= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} n &\text{if }n =0\\ f(a_i-1)&\text{if }n>0 \end{array} \right.\\ \strut\\ a_i&=\frac{1}{2}a_{i-1} - \frac{1}{4}(5a_{i-1} + 2)((-1)^{a_i-1} - 1) \end{align*} Can you just take the equation and go from there?

Other ways I thought of would be attempting to prove for only odd or even numbers, or trying to find an equation that matches the graph of a number vs. its "Collatz length"

I'm sure there's other ways; but I'm just trying to understand what, essentially, proving this conjecture would entail and where it would begin.

-
You have to prove that if you start interating $f$, starting with any positive integer at all, you'll at some point get to $1$. What part of this do you not understand? –  Chris Eagle Mar 23 '12 at 1:58
@ChrisEagle I get that, in theory. What I don't get is what that means technically/practically/mathematically. Or does the fact that we can't prove mean that we can't understand where we might start? –  Thomas Shields Mar 23 '12 at 2:00
@ThomasShields It means, mathematically, that "if you start interating f, starting with any positive integer at all, you'll at some point get to 1". This is a perfectly mathematical statement. –  Alex Becker Mar 23 '12 at 2:04
Sorry, was too quick on the close trigger! –  Aryabhata Mar 23 '12 at 2:09
@ThomasShields Lots of different approaches have been tried. AFAIK, there is no agreement as to "where to start". If we knew that, it wouldn't be such a hard problem. –  Alex Becker Mar 23 '12 at 2:11

Proving this conjecture indirectly would entail two things:

1. Proving that there is no number n which increases indefinitely

2. Proving there is no number n which loops indefinitely (besides the 4, 2, 1) loop

If one does these things then you have an answer to the collatz conjecture (and if you find a case of either of these things you have disproven the collatz conjecture obviously)

Of course this is just one approach that comes to mind, there are other possible methods which are beyond my own knowledge

-
this is pretty much what I was looking for - so, until/unless someone comes along with a better answer, check-mark for you :) –  Thomas Shields Mar 23 '12 at 4:10

The way I interpret the problem is

For there not being cycles:

That Collatz (What else? Important question) iterations change the prime factors of some arbitrary number such that future (Collatz) iterations of that number can never return to the original, or any preceding, set of prime factors. In essence, that prime factors, through at least these specific functions, get "mangled beyond return." Or that the only path to a previous set of prime factors is by inverting your previous operations, though this is probably too strong.

For no diverging numbers:

The aforementioned set of prime factors converges to a set of solely {2^n}, and thus to the empty set.

-