Of course that's one way of proving this wrong. But you have to start above 18 q... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

JoeAltmaier on Dec 13, 2019 | parent | context | favorite | on: Terence Tao Proves Result on the Collatz Conjectur...

Of course that's one way of proving this wrong. But you have to start above 18 quadrillion. Because all the numbers less than that have been tried.

3pt14159 on Dec 13, 2019 [–]

Has anyone tried really, really large numbers picked at random?

JoeAltmaier on Dec 13, 2019 | | [–]

One approach. But I'd suggest it has less than a one-in-18-quadrillion chance of working. From the statistics so far.

gnode on Dec 13, 2019 | | [–]

It's trivial to do. Here: https://js.do/code/383036

Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.
Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact