Source code
public class CollatzConjecture {
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) {
int stoppingTime = 0;
int number = i;
while (number != 1) {
if (number % 2 == 0) {
number = number / 2;
} else {
number = number * 3 + 1;
}
stoppingTime++;
}
System.out.println(stoppingTime);
}
}
}
Run 1
The code is well-structured with a clear separation of concerns: main loop, initialization, inner computation, and output. Nesting is minimal and flat, making the logic easy to follow. Intent is obvious—compute Collatz stopping times for 1 to 1000. Code length is concise but not cryptic. Each line performs one action, which improves readability. The reading flow is natural: setup, computation, output. Minor improvements could include extracting the Collatz logic into a method and perhaps adding a comment, but overall it is highly readable.
Run 2
The code is well-structured, with a clear separation between the outer loop, inner while loop, and conditional logic. Nesting is minimal (two levels), and the intent is obvious: compute Collatz stopping times for numbers 1 to 1000. Each line generally performs one action, improving readability. The reading flow is natural—from loop initialization to condition check to output. Minor deductions: the stoppingTime increment could be combined with the assignment to reduce repetition, and the class could include a short comment explaining the Collatz conjecture for non-domain readers. Overall, the code is concise, modular, and easy to follow.
Run 3
The code is well-structured and highly readable. It has a clear logical organization: a main method with a loop, then an inner while loop for the Collatz sequence. Nesting is minimal, with only one level inside the while loop. Intent is clear—calculating stopping times for numbers 1 to 1000. Code length is concise and appropriate for the task. Action granularity is mostly one action per line, though the for-loop header packs three statements, which is standard and not a readability issue. Reading flow is natural, moving from initialization to iteration to output. Minor improvements could include a constant for the upper bound (1000) and perhaps a brief comment explaining the Collatz rule, but overall it's straightforward and easy to follow.
Run 1
Code Structure: Logically organized, with initialization, sequence computation, and output clearly separated. Nesting: The loop/while/if nesting is moderate and appropriate to the algorithm, though extracting a stopping-time method could simplify main. Clarity of intent: The class name and stoppingTime variable communicate the Collatz purpose; number and i are understandable, but output lacks the corresponding starting value. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each statement performs one clear action. Reading flow: Consistent indentation and straightforward control flow make execution easy to follow.
Run 2
Code Structure: Logically organized, with initialization, Collatz iteration, and output clearly separated. Nesting: Moderate nesting through the for loop, while loop, and conditional, but each level is straightforward and necessary. Clarity of intent: The class name and stoppingTime variable convey the purpose; naming i more descriptively and printing the starting number alongside its stopping time would improve clarity. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary statements. Action granularity: Each statement performs a single action on its own line. Reading flow: Natural top-to-bottom progression with consistent indentation and familiar control structures. The hard-coded limit of 1000 and lack of explanatory context are minor readability weaknesses.
Run 3
Code Structure: Logically organized, with initialization, Collatz iteration, and output clearly separated. Nesting: Moderate nesting through a for loop, while loop, and if/else, but each level is straightforward. Clarity of intent: The class name and variables clearly communicate the calculation of stopping times; labeling each output with its starting number would improve interpretation. Code length: Concise, with no unnecessary code. Action granularity: Each statement performs one action, making changes easy to follow. Reading flow: Consistent indentation and a natural top-to-bottom sequence support readability. The unexplained upper bound of 1000 and lack of output labels are minor weaknesses.