The starting number was only 27, but before reaching 1, the sequence hits a maximum value of:
[ \boxed{9232} ]
In other words, it starts at 27, climbs to 9232, and eventually ends up at 1.
That behavior is precisely one of the reasons why the Collatz conjecture is so difficult: just because a number eventually goes down doesn't mean it decreases continuously.
And that brings up the big question:
Could there be a number that, unlike 27, never manages to return and enter the (4\rightarrow2\rightarrow1) loop?
So far, we have no way to prove that such a number doesn't exist.
Now let's look at a step-by-step example using a number that takes quite a while to reach the cycle: 27.
The rule is:
🟢 If it is even → divide by 2.
🔴 If it is odd → multiply by 3 and add 1.
Example: start with 27
Step 0:
[ 27 ]
27 is odd:
[ 27\times3+1=82 ]
Step 1:
[ 82 ]
82 is even:
[ 82\div2=41 ]
Step 2:
[ 41 ]
41 is odd:
[ 41\times3+1=124 ]
Step 3:
[ 124\div2=62 ]
Step 4:
[ 62\div2=31 ]
Step 5:
31 is odd:
[ 31\times3+1=94 ]
Step 6:
[ 94\div2=47 ]
Step 7:
47 is odd:
[ 47\times3+1=142 ]
Step 8:
[ 142\div2=71 ]
Step 9:
71 is odd:
[ 71\times3+1=214 ]
And it continues:
[ 214\rightarrow107\rightarrow322\rightarrow161\rightarrow484\rightarrow242\rightarrow121\rightarrow364\rightarrow182\rightarrow91\rightarrow274\rightarrow137\rightarrow412\righta rrow206\rightarrow103\rightarrow310\rightarrow155\rightarrow466\rightarrow233\rightarrow700\rightarrow350\rightarrow175\rightarrow526\rightarrow263\rightarrow790\rightarrow395\ri ghtarrow1186\rightarrow593\rightarrow1780\rightarrow890\rightarrow445\rightarrow1336\rightarrow668\rightarrow334\rightarrow167\rightarrow502\rightarrow251\rightarrow754\rightarr ow377\rightarrow1132\rightarrow566\rightarrow283\rightarrow850\rightarrow425\rightarrow1276\rightarrow638\rightarrow319\rightarrow958\rightarrow479\rightarrow1438\rightarrow719\r [ 2158\rightarrow1079\rightarrow3238\rightarrow1619\rightarrow4858\rightarrow2429\rightarrow7288\rightarrow3644\rightarrow1822\rightarrow911\rightarrow2734\rightarrow1367\rightarrow4102\rightarrow2051\rightarrow6154\rightarrow3077\rightarrow9232\rightarrow4616\rightarrow2308\rightarrow1154\rightarrow577\rightarrow1732\rightarrow866\rightarrow433\rightarrow1300\rightarrow650\rightarrow325\rightarrow976\rightarrow488\rightarrow244\rightarrow122\rightarrow61\rightarrow184\rightarrow92\rightarrow46\rightarrow23\rightarrow70\rightarrow35\rightarrow106\rightarrow53\rightarrow160\rightarrow80\rightarrow40\rightarrow20\rightarrow10\rightarrow5\rightarrow16\rightarrow8\rightarrow4\rightarrow2\rightarrow1 ]
And finally:
[ \boxed{1\rightarrow4\rightarrow2\rightarrow1} ]
The surprising part 🤯
The starting number was only 27, but before reaching 1, the sequence hits a maximum value of:
[ \boxed{9232} ]
In other words, it starts at 27, climbs to 9232, and eventually ends up at 1.
That behavior is precisely one of the reasons why the Collatz conjecture is so difficult: just because a number eventually goes down doesn't mean it decreases continuously.
And that brings up the big question:
Could there be a number that, unlike 27, never manages to return and enter the (4\rightarrow2\rightarrow1) loop?
So far, we have no way to prove that such a number doesn't exist.