0
$\begingroup$

Details:

The following terminology is non-standard.

Definition 1: A reverse pair of numbers is a pair of numbers $m$ and $n$ such that, if the decimal expansion of $m$ is $$\overline{a_1a_2\cdots a_k},$$ then that of $n$ is $$\overline{a_ka_{k-1}\cdots a_2a_1},$$ where $k\ge 2$.

For example, $35$ and $53$ form such a pair.

Definition 2: A string of the iterated Collatz conjecture function is a word $w$ in the alphabet $\Bbb N$ such that its alphabet members are exclusively in the order from left to right according to the Collatz conjecture function.

For example, $(5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1)$ is such a string.

The Question:

I'm looking for numbers $N$ whose strings (starting with $N$) of the iterated Collatz conjecture function contain reverse pairs. Are they significant? How "common" are they?

My attempt:

I found that $(35, 106, 53, \text{etc.})$ is such a string, so $35$, its double $70$, and so on, are examples. The pair $35$ and $53$ inspired this question.

I merely guess a search using some programme or another for such $N$s would yield diminishing results as candidate $N$s increase. This guess is based on my own difficulty conjuring them up in my head or on paper.

Palindromic numbers stop the iteration of the function for obvious reasons. I'll leave it to you whether or not that's cheating, though, and whether we need to make sure $m\neq n$.

Please help :)

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to examine the Collatz conjecture. I'm just curious. I am aware that this is very "base ten" in nature.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Your idea of trying to examine the Collatz conjecture using palindromic numbers is interesting, but something to keep in mind is that 35 and 53 are palindromes only because they're written in base 10. In base 12 for instance they are written as 2,11 and 4,5. Why do we only consider palindromes in base 10? I don't see any particular reason why base 10 is important for this problem specifically. $\endgroup$
    – Ryan
    Aug 25, 2019 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ Disclaimer: I'm not trying to examine the Collatz conjecture. My questions here would be too simplistic $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Aug 25, 2019 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ Neither $35$ nor $53$ are palindromic numbers, @RyanGreyling. $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Aug 25, 2019 at 1:14
  • $\begingroup$ Oh my bad, the proper term I meant to use was reverse pairs. $\endgroup$
    – Ryan
    Aug 25, 2019 at 1:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 70 doesn't go through 7. $\endgroup$
    – user645636
    Aug 25, 2019 at 9:40

0

You must log in to answer this question.