2
$\begingroup$

There is this question I have read about the 3x+1 conjecture so I am thinking of 3x-1 instead closed as not research level.

It is about replacing $3n+1$ with $3n-1$ in the Collatz conjecture.

OP shows some effort done: three attracting cycles discovered, these being the only ones conjectured; I don't see any easy answer to that.

I believe this is one of the cases when the OP might remain ignorant about the closure reason. Why is this not research level? I don't know.

What to do in such cases? Should not the OP be somehow notified more clearly about the closure reason?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It's not research-level in the sense that a bit of research should reveal that people have studied this variation before. $\endgroup$ Aug 6 at 8:22
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Yes, that was explained in a comment by François G. Dorais. I was not aware of that, I think it is not easy to find it, and I think that having an answer with that information would be very useful. $\endgroup$ Aug 6 at 8:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The linked post is hopelessly written: it's not a question and shows no effort of giving context or making the problem explicit to people not familiar with it. If you think there's an interesting question in this topic, I'd suggest you to post one. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Aug 7 at 17:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .