@Xander, @quid, are you around? Please see yet another post today, by the user suspended yesterday (with username the same as account suspended yesterday).

The post was closed for "Not being about Mathematics", and a user suggested this was because posts attempting to solve open problems are considered off-topic.

However, if that's the case, I submit that my question isn't directly about solving the Collatz Conjecture, that's merely the history and context of how I came to ask the question. I'm really trying to learn about divisibility and integer solutions to exponential division problems. And if you think that my question needs to be restated to be more clear about that, I'm happy to edit this one or write a new one.

@CSStudent7782 You are free to edit the question as you see fit. It is not a good idea to repost the same question.

If it doesn't really have to do with the Collatz Conjecture, perhaps leave out reference to it. Right now, the site has been flooded with purported proofs of the conjecture, so just the mere mention of it in the title or first sentence is likely to turn off some users. I would suggest you edit your question without mention of the CC.

@CSStudent7782 The question "How would I find more solutions, or show that no more exist?" is asking us how to disprove Collatz conjecture. Irrespectively of the closing reason, asking how to prove/disprove a famous conjecture is not welcome here. (Disclosure: I am one of the five close-voters)

@amWhy done. Thanks and see you!

@amWhy I think that's a good call.

@quid You're welcome. It seems I failed to link the relevant post :(. Thanks for finding it.

Thoughts on new wording?

@CSStudent7782 "Solving" your problem will disprove CC as a corollary. I guess this is sufficient for you to know that there is no known answer to your question? It doesn't matter how to re-word it.

@amWhy you had raised a flag and that made it easy. :-)

IMO what you did was actually the ideal way to proceed, no public link merely anabstract ping, in combination with a flag.

Really gone now.

@user21820 Gone With the Wind might work, too, in our wordsearches!

@CSStudent7782: I actually think it is fine to state factually the source of your question, and have edited your post to that effect. As long as it is clear that your question is not an attempt to solve the conjecture, I don't think people will have objection to it.

I also added a reopen-vote.

@CSStudent7782 Yup!

Now I really got to go. See you!

How does this question, err, PSQ, warrant 8 upvotes? I am really getting tired of seeing outrageous upvote counts on PSQs, as if answerers and sympathizers are intentionally upvoting posts of low quality, to justify answering them, post the publication of the EoQS.