Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am currently writing a paper on 3x+1 and realized that despite having enough knowledge to work on a singular facet of the problem I lack a more broad understanding of the problem. I have seen the thorough annotated bibliographies by Jeffrey C. Lagarias but I do not have the time to read most of them and I imagine plenty of them would not teach me much about the problem itself, even if I did take the time to dissect them. So what are the papers people feel I should read with my limited time to gain the best possible understanding of the Collatz Conjecture?

share|improve this question
    
Perhaps the Wikipedia page would be a good starting place? –  Daniel Littlewood Jun 14 '12 at 20:48
4  
I don't understand asking for an annotated bibliography from us when you already have access to one by THE expert. By the way, do you know that Lagarias has published a book on the problem? Maybe that's the first thing to look at. –  Gerry Myerson Jun 15 '12 at 11:19
    
I meant one of significantly shorter length but I will remove that part of the post anyways to avoid confusion. No I did not know, any chance you could post a link to it I could not seem to find it via google. Thank you for your helpful comment –  Jesse Stern Jun 15 '12 at 13:34
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

It's challenging to distill a required reading on the Collatz conjecture, because it's unsolved. What may or may not be necessary? As you might have noticed from Lagarias's annotated bibliographies, there is a lot of literature on the subject, and it seems as though Lagarias has already sifted through a whole lot. What would be more convenient than his bibliographies, with short explanations of what each paper has done? If I were you, and I was set on working on the problem, I would decide which of the papers were related to the methods I had in mind, or which ones at least sound interesting.

But to be sure, he was two bibliographies. Pre 2000 here and 2000-2009 here. As mentioned in the comments, he has a book, and an intro. Lagarias is the expert, and there's no better list.

I would also mention that the problem is unsolved, and so I recommend patience. Developing the patience to read a beautifully written set of annotated bibliographies might be a good place to start.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.