This is a question where I want to find "a best" way (or even different ways) to prove my assumption - just to widen my understanding of similar problems and how to approach them. It's a question of proof-strategy. (This is also related to my studies of the Collatz-problem)
Remark: this problem was less difficult than I thought it were, see my own answer. Regarding my question for a proof-strategy it is a nice example for how a tabular representation can obfuscate the problem and mislead the mind away from a relatively simple solution.
Consider the transformation on odd positive numbers $$ x_{k+1} = \left\{ \begin{array} {} { 3x_k-1 \over 2} &\qquad \text{ if } x_k \equiv 1 \pmod 4 \\ { 3x_k+1 \over 2} &\qquad \text{ if } x_k \equiv -1 \pmod 4 \end{array} \right. $$ such that for instance the trajectory beginning at $5$ continues like $ 5 \to 7 \to 11 \to 17 \to \ldots $
Because the numbers of the form $ x \equiv 3 \pmod 6$ have no preimage I take them as "roots" and order all trajectories in the following two-way infinite array of odd natural numbers $ \ge 3$ : $$ \small \begin{array} {r|rrrr} 3 & 5 & 7 & 11 & 17 & 25 & 37 & 55 & \cdots \\ 9 & 13 & 19 & 29 & 43 & 65 & 97 & 145 & \cdots \\ 15 & 23 & 35 & 53 & 79 & 119 & 179 & 269 & \cdots \\ 21 & 31 & 47 & 71 & 107 & 161 & 241 & 361 & \cdots \\ 27 & 41 & 61 & 91 & 137 & 205 & 307 & 461 & \cdots \\ 33 & 49 & 73 & 109 & 163 & 245 & 367 & 551 & \cdots \\ 39 & 59 & 89 & 133 & 199 & 299 & 449 & 673 & \cdots \\ 45 & 67 & 101 & 151 & 227 & 341 & 511 & 767 & \cdots \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \end{array} $$ The number $1$ forms a cycle $ 1 \to 1 $ and is not in this table.
It looks quite obvious, that I've got all positive odd numbers in this table, but now my question:
Q: How can I begin and proceed with a proof, that this table contains /that this transformation rule describes all positive odd integers $ \ge 3$ ?
Remark: perhaps my question is not optimally formulated, I'd even like getting help for this
I tried, whether it is useful to reformulate the transformation in such a way: $$T: x_k = 4j + r \to x_{k+1}=6j +r \qquad \qquad \text{ for } j \ge 1 , r \in \{-1,1\} $$ then look at the inverse and ask, whether any number of the form $ x=6j \pm 1$ under the inverse transform has a trajectory, which ends at a number of the form $3+6i $.
But I have no idea how to arrive at a so-to-say "completeness"-statement.
[update] after the comment of André Nicholas - ansatz transferred into a new answer
Hint 1: What would be the smallest odd integer missing from the list?
Hint 2: You already made the observation that an odd integer $\not\equiv 3\pmod6$ has a preimage (that is smaller).
Hint 3: The empty set is the only set of positive odd integers that does not have a smallest element. Fermat's infinite descent was one of the first proofs by induction.