(1+2i)x+1 sequence
Marc LeBrun
mlb at fxpt.com
Fri Apr 29 18:27:26 CEST 2005
>=Kohmoto
> I considered about an analog of 3x+1 sequence in Gaussian Integer.
Interesting idea.
> [Definition of 3x+1 sequence]
> a(n)=(3*a(n-1)+1)/2^k , where 2^k is the highest power of two dividing
3*a(n-1)+1.
I believe the traditional "Collatz" definition is simpler: "x --> x/2 if x
even, 3x+1 if x odd". These are essentially similar, but I'd recommend
the simpler form to encourage easier communication.
Then, generalizing with respect to some divisor (2, (1+i), etc), "even"
just becomes "evenly divisible" while "odd" becomes "not evenly divisible".
> [A translation to Gaussian integer]
>
> (2+i)x+1 sequence :
> S_1 1, 1+2i, 1, 1+2i, ....
> S_2 3, 2+5i, 3, 2+5i, ....
> S_3 7, 4+11i, 6+7i, 3+10i, ....
>
> (1+2i)x+1 sequence :
> T_1 1, 1, 1, 1, ....
> T_2 3, 2+3i, 2+5i, 1+8i, 6+i, ....
> T_3 5, 3+10i, 1, 1, ....
>
> I am not sure if they are correct, because the factorization is
difficult without a computer.
This illustrates why simpler definitions might be better. To simply divide
x by (1+i) we need only to multiply it by (1-i)/2. We can then do this
until x becomes "not evenly divisible". This is easy to test, since if
x=(a+ib) then x/(1+i) is (a+b)/2+i(a-b)/2 so we can quickly tell by looking
at a and b, we don't need to perform difficult factorizations (although a
computer is still handy).
We thus just need to specify when x/(1+i) doesn't divide out "evenly". Now
obviously when a and b have opposite parity the ratio gives half-integers,
so we at least know that all such numbers are "odd" (although there may be
others, see next comment).
> Numbers are calculated in the first quadrant of Z[i] plane.
And this is true just when a>=b.
However I don't think factorization of Gaussian integers is usually defined
this way. Instead the "irreducible" factors are taken to lie in the
"tilted" quadrant between x=y and x=-y containing the positive
x-axis. This produces the simple traditional conjugate factorizations such
as 2=(1+i)(1-i).
Both definitions might be interesting, but we're proliferating generalizations.
> Do S_3 , T_2 become periodic?
I don't know, since it depends on what choices you want make in defining
these things. However I will say that my quick computer-aided calculations
seemed to get quite different values than the ones you sent, no matter
which variations I chose. They all looked like they were diverging, but I
didn't have time to dig deeper.
I'd suggest re-analyzing this starting with the simpler definitions,
eliminating as many cases as possible a priori, to see if there's a "core"
that are worth exploring via more extensive calculations.
An interesting diagram might be produced by drawing the vectors connecting
each Gaussian integer with its successor.
More information about the SeqFan
mailing list