Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
Setting (p. 17). is the function, for odd and for even , on all integers ((1.2), p. 2). For an integer , Definition 2.10 sets to be the number of integers with such that for some . Definition 2.11 sets
and, when the two agree, calls the common value the growth exponent . For the inverse orbit of is , so .
Conjecture 2.1 (p. 17, Growth Exponent Conjecture), quoted: "For all integers , the growth exponent exists, with ."
The survey attributes the conjecture to Applegate and Lagarias, and adds (p. 18) that the Conjecture would imply but does not seem to determine for every such ; that Applegate and Lagarias also conjectured the stronger linear bound for all , with a constant ; that Theorem 2.5 (Krasikov and Lagarias: for , p. 17) gives ; and that the branching random walk model of §6.5 predicts (see Theorem 6.5).
Source. A. V. Kontorovich and J. C. Lagarias, Stochastic models for the and problems, arXiv:0910.1944v1 (2009), 66 pp.; published in The Ultimate Challenge: The Problem (AMS, 2010). Pages and labels are those of the arXiv v1 print; the edition read is identified on the source card.
Proof pointer
None: the statement is a conjecture. The lower bound behind is Krasikov and Lagarias, Acta Arith. 109 (2003); the survey says the exponent was computed with (p. 17), while that paper's own result page, Theorem 6.1, records a computation with .
Read depth
Claims checked: Definitions 2.10 and 2.11, Conjecture 2.1 and the remarks on p. 18 were read clause by clause on the page images of the print. Nothing here is independently reviewed.
Dependencies
Theorem 2.5 of the survey (Krasikov and Lagarias 2003), as reported, for the lower bound .
Bears on
- Problem 1135: the problem's is the survey's on the positive integers. An affirmative answer to the problem puts every positive integer up to into the count , and , so it gives , as the survey notes (p. 18). The converse does not follow: , or Conjecture 2.1 for every , leaves room for positive integers that never reach , so neither would answer the problem. The survey proves neither.