I have searched the www for this little algorithm and its result thoroughly, but it was nowhere to be found, do you know if my observation is provable?
The Algorithm:
Step 1: Select an arbitrary prime number p, and calculate its Collatz Sequence $C(p)$.
Step 2: Now select the largest prime number m in this sequence. $ m := Max.Prim \{C(p)\}$
Step 3: Select the next higher "neighbour" general prime number $M \in \mathbb{P}$, $M \gt m$ and calculate the Collatz Sequence $C(M)$. (Go to Step 2 and repeat)
Observation:
The sequence of the next higher prime number continues the previous number sequences.
What I'd like to proove: $C(m) \subset C(M), \forall p \in \mathbb{P}$
Is this even provable as long as the Conjecture is not proven?
I'm reallly struggling to find a starting point here...
Do you have any ideas?
I believe that your question is this:
For any $p$, compute $s = collatz(p)$, the collatz sequence for $p$.
let $m$ be the largest prime in $s$.
Let $M$ be the next-larger prime than $m$.
Let $t = collatz(M)$.
It is always true that $m$ is in the sequence $t$, regardless of the starting prime number $p$?
What you've asked is whether, if we repeat the process, it'll continue to be true, but since the process starts with a prime, if we can prove my shorter conjecture true for all primes, we'll have proven it for all iterations of the process. And if we can prove that the one-iteration thing fails for some prime, we'll have shown that the conjecture is false. (In between is the possibility that we cannot prove it for all primes, but the overall conjecture is true because certain primes never occur as the largest prime in a collatz sequence...but that third possibility need not concern us, as we'll see.)
Unfortunately, my smaller conjecture is false, hence your larger one is false as well. For $p = 19$, the Collatz sequence's largest prime is $m = 29$; the next prime after that is $M = 31$. The Collatz sequence for $M = 31$ is
which does not contain the number $m = 29$.