Talk:Collatz-like: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Definition: new section) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
That said, I think the linear case is one of the most important and should definitely be documented well! [[User:Sligocki|Sligocki]] ([[User talk:Sligocki|talk]]) 14:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC) | That said, I think the linear case is one of the most important and should definitely be documented well! [[User:Sligocki|Sligocki]] ([[User talk:Sligocki|talk]]) 14:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
Also, note, someone created a [[Consistent Collatz]] page a while ago that might fit in with this idea, but I'm not really sure how to unite them ... [[User:Sligocki|Sligocki]] ([[User talk:Sligocki|talk]]) 14:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:17, 30 May 2025
Definition
FWIW, I think the current definition is a bit too restrictive for the general idea of Collatz-like. Notice Bigfoot where each subfunction can depend upon all the inputs and the Tetration Machine example where the function don't need to be linear/polynomials.
I think of Collatz-like as any situation where the the function is defined piecewise based on parity of the inputs.
That said, I think the linear case is one of the most important and should definitely be documented well! Sligocki (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Also, note, someone created a Consistent Collatz page a while ago that might fit in with this idea, but I'm not really sure how to unite them ... Sligocki (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)