<story><title>“Pack it in, mathematicians, someone owes LLVM a million bucks”</title><url>https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/1428093469755527168</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>hevalon</author><text>For anyone that wants to have some background context on the problem statement (3x+1), Veritasium has made a great explanation [1].&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=094y1Z2wpJg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;watch?v=094y1Z2wpJg&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>“Pack it in, mathematicians, someone owes LLVM a million bucks”</title><url>https://twitter.com/jckarter/status/1428093469755527168</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>ColinWright</author><text>(a) The test is the wrong way round for the Collatz Conjecture;&lt;p&gt;(b) The Collatz Conjecture isn&amp;#x27;t one of the Millennium problems;&lt;p&gt;(c) It&amp;#x27;s using bounded numbers in the range where the Collatz Conjecture is known to be true;&lt;p&gt;(d) It seems reasonable to say &amp;quot;If this routine exits then the value will be &amp;quot;true&amp;quot;;&lt;p&gt;(e) None of what I say here is deep or new, so when people get excited about this sort of thing it makes me wonder what I&amp;#x27;ve missed.&lt;p&gt;So ... what have I missed?</text></comment>