/vqc/ - Virtual Quantum Computer

>>10959 (last thread)

>Was it the binary patterns that revealed the (n-1) and (na) values? Your post is vague about how you arrived at your results.

Same thing we were both doing before with the binary chunks except specifically looking for na or n-1 and looking in all elements in (e,1) and (f,1).

>I have questions about how the sorting occurs for a binary search.

It's just (e,1) and (f,1), what do you mean?

>Please post all your results for each test, and I'll take the time to analyze them in binary to look for matching chunks. M's breakdown needs to be analyzed in binary too.

There were two there in the last thread. The others were the same thing. I found either n-1 or na in binary as a chunk at the end of one of the a[t]s some number below a[t]=c*BigN (which would explain that old clue, potentially). It's probably not the sort of thing you'd be able to do by hand since you'd have to write out hundreds of thousands of elements.

Hello AA. Lots of love. Regarding your post about the endings of squares. The base-10 endings of squares are the values of their roots mod 10 squared.

1^2 -> 1

2^2 -> 4

3^2 -> 9

4^2 -> 6

5^2 -> 5

6^2 -> 6

7^2 -> 9

8^2 -> 6

9^1 -> 1

0^2 -> 0

When you restrict to the base of the square having opposite parity, you get an odd ending - 1, 5, or 9. Bases of matching parity are always en even ending - 0, 4, or 6. Determining what a variable will end in, just run the equations or possibilities of equations based on what's excluded by the parities and endings that you know. The number six rule from 10935 is just possibilities being excluded by evaluating the endings that are known under the equation (x+n)^2 + c = (d+n)^2 (mod 10). It only excludes 2, 3, 7, and 8 from being squares deterministically. You still don't know whether a number ending in a square mod 10 is a square without testing it, from an algorithmic standpoint.

10956, 10957:

How did you factorise the 3 values?

10958:

AA, I have to address your approach. You are focusing too much on the numbers themselves instead of the relationships between them. All the useful things we can say of a number, such as its primality, factorisation, length, square root, remainder, are relations between it and other numbers or concepts. The binary ending of a number is the number itself. We can generate many numbers that end in their own factor (I've tested this), but it results in different families of numbers that aren't the RSA numbers, and it's going to take 2 to the bit length operations times the unknowns you test it against times the amount of elements you do this process for. It's a bit like saying the value 5 contains more information than the amount of bytes used to hold it in your computer. Even if you generate a lot of elements based on that number, if you aren't generating those elements for a reason in terms of numbers that have relationships, whether they be algebraic or numerical, the only information contained here is the bytes used to store it. I'm not saying the hint is wrong or that sort of thing. This: The hint references an algorithm with the number as an input - how can any algorithm be deduced from only its input?

VA, I don't think there is much to study in the binary of those factors I posted. Think about it this way - any sequence of digits you type on your keyboard is a number. Do you really think that contains much more information than just its own value?

Now, I understand that the idea is that there is something about the number's factors in its own value. But I can disprove that. Consider 21. 1 + 1 + 1 … 21 times, or, in binary, 2^0 + 2^2 + 2^4. It's just bits. Any kind of transformation you apply to it is something that took that number as an input which you didn't deduce from the number itself. (e.g if I see that a number ends in another number and decide to use that information, that didn't come from the number itself - it came from the base I use to view it). If you're looking to show numbers as a family or that sort of thing, you have to propose families of numbers yourself and see which arrangement is useful because otherwise there are an infinite amount of ways you could arrange numbers.

>>10964

>All the useful things we can say of a number, such as its primality, factorisation, length, square root, remainder, are relations between it and other numbers or concepts. The binary ending of a number is the number itself.

No, it's an unknown appearing at the end of a known. It's two separate numbers.

>We can generate many numbers that end in their own factor

Many but not for all numbers. If we find a specific a[t] that this always works for then we have it for all numbers.

>it's going to take 2 to the bit length operations times the unknowns you test it against times the amount of elements you do this process for

If we know which a[t] is the right one (assuming there is one) then it's going to take at most n steps where n is the number of bits in d (which is exactly what Chris said).

>It's a bit like saying the value 5 contains more information than the amount of bytes used to hold it in your computer

It's more like saying it could potentially hold some information about numbers that are at most one less bit in length than 5 in specific contexts, so that's completely wrong.

Everything you've just said about the pattern VA and I have been working on is incorrect. If you don't think it's going to go anywhere then that's fine. We don't have to agree or all work on the same ideas. But this just makes it seem like you haven't even read everything properly.

>>10966

My argument still applies to your method, even more so if I tailor it further to what you are doing. You are trying to deduce an algorithm, one that factorises integers, from the integers that it factorises. Consider the infinite for a moment, the infinity of how many functions/algorithms exist (it is perfectly valid to represent an algorithm as a function mathematically) that can be composed by a human mind. This is an uncountable, unfathomable infinity. With the same weight that you can say c contains its factors, I can say that c contains the output of that uncountable infinity of functions that can operate on it. Regardless of whether it's just c or some amount of numbers (in elements) you derived from c, the same statement applies because you didn't derive those elements in relation to an algorithm or process that gives them meaning, they are just more and more numbers that are a predefined distance away from c. Now, I am aware that the elements in the grid are derived from VQC's factorisation algorithm, but this is an unknown to you, and it is impossible for the values of those variables to tell you about VQC's factorisation algorithm because, as I am showing philosophically, as much as they can tell you about VQC's factorisation algorithm, they will also tell you about the infinite amount of algorithms that are not VQC's factorisation algorithm. Considering that that infinity exists in these numbers just as much as the algorithm you are looking for does, do you really see information in numbers or just numbers?

I hope you will reconsider your approach. All approaches that are capable of producing progress start from the most basic trial division approach and improve upon that. Fermat's method started from that and improved it by changing the search to squares around the square root, sieves improved that square search by making it a search of the building blocks of square congruences mod c, the modulo group algorithms p-1 and ECM improved upon the trial division approach by combining it with Fermat's little theorem and then using elliptic curves to run p-1 in infinite groups. If you don't have a foundation, you'll never finish the building. Trying to find insight in numbers instead of operations on them is a black hole. If you still refuse to see it, take it from the hint-giver himself:

Post no. 5413:

You are closer than you think.

It is efficiencies.

From O(EXP) to O(log t).

From exponential complexity class (well, sub exponential with the general number field sieve) to the natural log of the length of the integer c in bits.

>>10967

None of this addresses any of what I said last time we had this conversation or anything I just said. I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you if your entire argument boils down to "I think that idea isn't going to work because you're not doing enough of what I think you should be doing with the numbers".

>>10969

"Your arguments" as in both of us discussing the pattern, or "your arguments" as in me posting the math and clues that I just mentioned M isn't addressing? In both cases the answer is no.

>>10969

I think I just got what you mean. That was a completely different situation and I actually addressed the points he raised.

>>10972

My point was based on things Chris had said, and the whole time I continually told him I wasn't trying to stop him from doing what he was doing, just make him aware of things he might not have been aware of. His right now is that he thinks I should stop working on this clue altogether because he doesn't think there's any information in a chunk of the binary of one number that would be relevant to another number, even though that's literally the entirety of the pattern VA and I have been working on and I proved it mathematically up to at least three million last thread (the only thing missing being a specific element and a specific unknown, which seems fairly likely to exist based on a bunch of what Chris said), which, putting these last couple posts into context, would mean that his argument is "I don't think this works because you're not doing enough equations."

For the last month every time I post something it seems like you just feel the need to tell me I'm doing something wrong. This situation is blatantly obviously different to the one you're bringing up. Every time I try to be neutral you tell me I'm being passive-aggressive. Every time I say anything in any other tone you tell me I'm being an emotional asshole. What is your problem with me? Why are you constantly causing arguments over nothing?

>>10966

Hello AA! My question about the sorting for a binary search was for this reason:

Remember Chris' clue about (e,1) and (f,1) being a wave function of sorts?

What if we have matching binary chunks in (e,1) at [t+n] or in (-f,1) at [t+n-1] ?

The question in regards to sorting was this: when all the binary a[t] values are sorted prior to the search, do we get groups of matching chunks? Or am I still not understanding the sorting process for a binary search?

If matching groups (or even pairs) of chunks do exist, then maybe the [t] distance between matching chunks gives us n or (n-1). Just thinking out loud over here.

>>10966

Or maybe starting with our 6 knowns, we just search for binary chunk matches < d and measure the [t] distance between them looking for n or (n-1).

>>10973

Didn't think I was going to be posting again but this is painful to watch. I've seen several different people analyze your binary idea from several different approaches and all of them proved it's a cleverly disguised exponential search. The first guy who analyzed (who you dismissed as having not properly read your amazing and brilliant ideas) your idea calculated how many operations you run for each c and compared it to testing that many values in the search space and found it to be equivalent for the size of the numbers you're testing. Then M shows from a logical analysis perspective that what you're doing is just as likely to result in a factorization algorithm as every algorithm in existence and you still dismiss his criticism of your shitfest. All you are doing is building an infinite intersection between the sets of numbers that have their own solution values in one of several elements based on knowns in (e, 1). You aren't doing any mathematical induction or algorithm building at all and frankly are wasting the time of several people here who could be working on things that aren't veiled delusion. There's no magical binary pattern. All binary is is base 2 and base 2 is not based on multiplication in any way. Base 2 is literally how many 2s and a 1 you need to make a number.

And then you tell them they need to read your posts over and over again because they're too stupid to understand your idea??? What a massive irony it is that the person treating people like idiots is the one that can't do any advanced math.

>>10967

Please don't waste your time on this nonsense any more. There are more people who read the board than respond and they appreciated your analysis equations.

>>10979

>>10967

And by "this nonsense" they mean butting heads with AA.

There's lots to work on, and the more ground we cover, the better!

I personally don't think the binary search is pointless because there has to be a pattern in what is and isn't prime and how they're related. Lots of high level nerds are likewise searching for that. Gotta be a way to accurately predict the nth prime out of the blue.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if multiple angles are needed, with recognition of primes from binary being a "simple" yet integral part.

And now that the bread's broken in, I hereby christen it with a pound of sodium being thrown into a river.

Put on your work hats!WE'VE GOT NERD SHIT TO DO!

>>10980

When people put 10 times the work considering your own idea than you and conclude it's not fruitful, it's time to stop. In a team people should work on things together. Not stick with their own idea and keep going even if it's disproven 20 times, not ignore someone else's idea just because it includes some scary math symbols you can find the definition of how to compute in 15 seconds. Work together and agree on a good idea instead of sticking with a bad one just because you came up with it. There are people here that understand calculus, modular arithmetic, sieves, quantum mechanics even and he chooses to stare at binary numbers until the binaural audio god or VQC spoonfeeds him the solution?

I'm not just picking on AA. But VA and others are following along with what he's doing so he could, you know, not lead them into integer insanity.

>>10983

I apologize for lying.

>>10976

I do remember the wave form thing. The only wave-like pattern I remember ever seeing in binary was the triangles that were formed from zeros. I remember making screenshots. I think they're in grid patterns somewhere. But I don't think the binary numbers I was looking at for that had anything to do with this (not that I remember, it would have been over a year ago).

>when all the binary a[t] values are sorted prior to the search

When you say all do you mean from the six known elements? Everything in (e,1) and (f,1) is already smallest to largest, unless you mean you take the chunks out and sort those separately.

>Or am I still not understanding the sorting process for a binary search?

I'm still not quite sure what you mean but what we've been working on is literally searching for binary (which is the same as any other search except you happen to be looking for binary). If you're talking about the binary search algorithm (which isn't super related but came up in a discussion last thread), I posted a video about that last thread.

>>10985

Except that's not what you're doing. Generating 8+ elements in (e, 1) and inputting them in a hundred different ways into the c equation as solution values has nothing to do with induction to an algorithm. It's just a ton of data collection. If you were working on building an algorithm you would be asking how does the loop step use x hint or observation, not that. And the reason why it's angering to see is because people don't post their work here so people can ignore it and work on their own thing. That's why it's angering to see people trying to collaborate but not being able to because the people they want to collaborate are doing Java integer data collection instead of math. And yes, someone did calculate how many iterations your program does and compare it to random distribution: >>10682

>>10987

>Generating 8+ elements in (e, 1) and inputting them in a hundred different ways into the c equation as solution values has nothing to do with induction to an algorithm. It's just a ton of data collection.

That was when I was trying to see if there was a specific unknown and a specific known, and I didn't find one. There are still plenty of other places to look. That wasn't the actual algorithm.

>If you were working on building an algorithm you would be asking how does the loop step use x hint or observation, not that.

How is what I described in my last post not an algorithm? It takes input, completes operations, and then produces output. That's what an algorithm is. What Chris described last thread contained a loop, and nobody, to my knowledge, had any ideas related to loops as a result. All that means is, if this idea is relevant (which it could be, given the clues it's based on were presented at the same time as he talked about a loop that reduces search space by at least half each time), we haven't figured out everything about it yet.

>And the reason why it's angering to see is because people don't post their work here so people can ignore it and work on their own thing.

Everyone has constantly ignored each other and worked on their own thing since the start. I can point to several people other than myself who complained about that. Also I was helping VA with an idea he had. Should I just keep that to myself and not post it on the board? Then VA doesn't know if his idea is worth exploring.

>And yes, someone did calculate how many iterations your program does and compare it to random distribution

See point one. That wasn't the algorithm. That was me trying to figure out what inputs the algorithm would take by trying every known against every unknown (fucking obviously you wouldn't do that in the final algorithm).

>>10988

You keep miscontruing what you're doing with the algorithm it's supposed to help make. The missing step in what you're doing is the entirety of the problem itself. I'm willing to work with someone on this without an attitude from now on but what you're doing is literally data collection. (e, 1) by itself isn't transformed to be specific to c, and binary isn't either. Math isn't weather pattern collection. Even if that pattern was there you would find 10x more insight and save many hours of confusion from putting the steps to generate an element next to what would make that end in a or something in binary, not trying to make a computer replace theoretical examination.

>>10989

>You keep miscontruing what you're doing with the algorithm it's supposed to help make.

I've said the exact same thing a million times because (and, believe it or not, this isn't narcissistic delusion, since I can back it up with facts) >>10682 is based on a completely different algorithm I was using to figure out the algorithm I'm actually working on, >>10964 and >>10967 contain a bunch of statements that aren't true of the algorithm I've been working on, and >>10978 bases its argument on both of those incorrect arguments. Here it is in as plain language as I can make it. If this argument keeps going then this is the post I'm going to refer back to. These are the exact steps of the algorithm idea VA and I have been working on:

<take c (O(1))

<calculate all of c's knowns (a bunch of O(1)s and one O(sqrt))

<assuming one exists, find the one specific element in (e,1) or (f,1) where we have a relevant a[t] value and where the lookup process is the same for every c but unique to every c (it's either going to be O(1) or O(log n) if it exists)

<count through a[t]'s bits from right to left until you find either the unknown represented in binary or you reach d's length, meaning c is prime (O(n) where n is the length of d in bits, which scales logarithmically)

All that's missing is the one element and knowing which one unknown we'd be looking for. Disregard every other post I or VA have made about any of this (aside from the ones where we show that this binary pattern does exist, which I can refer back to if you don't believe me) and focus on the four lines of greentext above. Are there any issues with this algorithm? This specific algorithm within this post I'm typing right now? No more of what you perceive as misconstruing what I'm doing. This is the fucking algorithm.

>I'm willing to work with someone on this without an attitude from now on

Wow, what a heartfelt apology

>what you're doing is literally data collection

No it literally is not holy shit how many times do I have to explain this I was trying to figure out what inputs the algorithm would take, that is not the algorithm itself

>(e, 1) by itself isn't transformed to be specific to c

So an and a(n-1) also aren't specific to c?

>>10990

You are taking my statements obstinately literally. I was referring to the fact that (e, 1) isn't organized in any way that allows you to query the c-specific information in it, namely t and t of nb. Secondly, why would that element exist at all? The existence of it follows from your interpretation of the wave function hint and nothing else in grid patterns. Every VQC hint I can think of would tell you to put information together in an algorithm, not reduce the problem to an intractable "find the lookup element." How is that progress? I would rather make small improvements over an exponential search like "I can skip every so and so t" than have an integer factorization problem within an integer factorization problem of trying to find a divine lookup element. The way you are posing this problem makes it impossible because to complete the algorithm you're proposing in those steps requires everything nontrivial to be solved at once in one step. It's the exact same thing as writing the grid equations and trying to find the missing one between n and c. It doesn't "break the problem down" it literally shoves it into one element.

>>10991

>I was referring to the fact that (e, 1) isn't organized in any way that allows you to query the c-specific information in it, namely t and t of nb.

That's irrelevant if that's not the element we're looking for.

>Secondly, why would that element exist at all?

If you look here >>10689 99% of all numbers up to 350k were factored based on 18 elements and I think 9 unknowns. There are significantly more unknowns than that and exponentially more elements to look at. Why would it not exist?

>The existence of it follows from your interpretation of the wave function hint

Is this whole discussion just a wind up? The only time anyone's mentioned the hint about wave functions was VA a couple hours ago. We've been working on this idea for months. I am trying very hard right now not to type anything angry, but this statement could not possibly be further from the truth, to the point where I am genuinely starting to question if your entire deal here is to just make me angry and waste my time. How in the everliving fuck did you come to the conclusion that this idea is based on the wave function hint? Please tell me.

>The way you are posing this problem makes it impossible because to complete the algorithm you're proposing in those steps requires everything nontrivial to be solved at once in one step

Not if it's the element found from the loop Chris mentioned last thread it isn't. O(log n) followed by O(log n) is O(log n). That's why I said O(1) or O(log n), because I don't know.

>>10992

To what place are you checking the ending of each a[t]? Up to the bit length of d?

>>10993

Yes.

>>10994

>>10992

c = 499 * 701 = 591^2 + 518 = 349799

T = 296

Now I'm taking the average bit length of a[t] to calculate the amount of calculations in total

a_sum(296) = 17454195

a_sum(296) / T = 58966

(log2(58966)+1) = 16

16 * 18 * 9 = 2592

The search space in a is 590 = d-1. If every a[t] has a different value more often than not for those 2592 calculations, between 5 and 4 times the search space of a, then this is a disordered but complete search of the whole search space between a and d.

Hello all.

>>10990

>Thanks for explaining more clearly, it was hard to get what you were trying to do.

I think the best explanation of anon's criticism is that the problem isn't being broken down. There are many simple formulas in maths that have very complex derivations, integer factorisation is definitely one of those. If you are trying to arrive at that formula by only looking at the place where that formula would fit in instead of the complex derivation (in this case the many different patterns compiled by AA in GP and the many different concepts mentioned by VQC), you confine finding the solution to an accident at least in terms of insight. Sieves make progress by breaking the problem down into smaller and smaller steps. Taking the equations that form the grid and defining formulas to shortcut certain processes or give a certain quantity faster than searching is what I'm good at. I don't see myself providing anything useful by trying to find a relationship between an uncertain element and c which may not even be algebraic (it could take more than one step to isolate, which is something that is very hard to identify working backwards with such little information). That is why I focused on showing there may be a better route than what were you doing, AA.

>>10995

Surprised but enthused the a_sum(t) formula was useful for your point!

>>10995

>Now I'm taking the average bit length of a[t] to calculate the amount of calculations in total

Why are you doing that? sqrt(349799) is 591, which is 1001001111 in binary, which means a maximum of ten steps. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>>10996

Most of what you said is true but if that's what this anon is saying then it's obscured by them constantly being incorrect about the idea.

>>10997

The amount of unknowns and elements you are checking combined with the bit length of d (that should be 18 * 10 * 9, you're right) is the entirety of the search space. Here it's between 2 and 3 times the search space so if there's a different value at each point of the binary check at least a third of the time then you're literally checking every possible odd number below d. I don't know why you keep equating your approach with the length of the final solution but it's getting disingenuous at this point, your approach does ~2.7 times the amount of calculations of trial division yet you're using it as proof that it's approaching the solution.

This is one number but it generalizes for the following reason: the length of a is around the largest possible length of a as any larger than sqrt(350k) would just become b and a would be small again. The total calculations before being multiplied over the bitlength is 18 * 9 which is going to be a multiplicative order higher than the amount of a for any semiprime below. If your cognitive dissonance forbids you from believing me then put a counter in the program and calculate it yourself but you're going to find the same thing.

>>10998

>>10999

After having spent all of this time repeatedly telling you that what I'm looking for is one unknown that appears within one known and that the algorithm I wrote to check all unknowns against all knowns was an attempt to figure out which of each to use, if you really still don't understand then I give up. I just cannot possibly comprehend how you still don't understand what I'm saying.

>>10999

I should have fucking guessed who you were from the start lmao

>>11001

Yeah it is me. Does that invalidate my point? What don't I understand about your brilliant idea? You've searched every possible value of a (literally) over 350k and then used it as proof there's an element that does it in d-bitlength steps.

>>11002

>Does that invalidate my point?

It explains why this argument started off with you misrepresenting the idea, getting unnecessarily emotional and insulting me. I would recommend not doing that if you want to have a productive discussion (although last time I said that it made you angrier and then you left the board).

>You've searched every possible value of a

c

>(literally) over 350k and then used it as proof

Evidence. I've never claimed to be right but when this works 99% of the time without even looking at all of the elements then I would consider that worth looking into (whereas you really seem to want me to stop looking into it apparently, even though what I do with my time is irrelevant to what you do with your time).

>What don't I understand about your brilliant idea?

Fucked if I know. But now that I know who you are I actually am going to stop replying because I know you're going to think I'm an asshole and that I'm full of shit no matter what I say.

>>11003

> I've never claimed to be right but when this works 99% of the time without even looking at all of the elements

Because you're looking at 18 * 9 * bitlength(d) different binary numbers and it remakes the entire search space between a and d normally.

> But now that I know who you are I actually am going to stop replying because I know you're going to think I'm an asshole and that I'm full of shit no matter what I say.

Stop projecting. I came in angry because you kept perpetuating your idea that has been proven backwards and forwards as an exponential search rewritten to be in constant time over the interval up to 350,000. You analyze VA's ideas and show they're exponential search all the time yet can't handle when other people do it to yours.

>>11004

>Stop projecting. I came in angry because you kept perpetuating your idea that has been proven backwards and forwards as an exponential search rewritten to be in constant time over the interval up to 350,000. You analyze VA's ideas and show they're exponential search all the time yet can't handle when other people do it to yours.

Cool. Explain this graph >>10985

>>11005

It's a picture of the time complexity of what you want to get to, not the program in question we are discussing that you claimed is evidence your approach is right. It's purposefully disingenuous to equate your approach to the solution. Post a graph of how many calculations your program does over the whole interval.

>>11006

It's a graph of how many calculations the idea would do over the whole interval assuming there's an element this works for. I don't know how many times I've said that throughout this thread but I'm not going to sit here for another four hours explaining the same thing over and over again for someone who refuses to listen and who I know isn't interested in working on other people's ideas anyway. Eat shit.

>>11006

Anon, you've made your point, let's let only the quality of ideas and not spite nor who someone is decide arguments here. AA has not addressed your calculation based on the specifics he gave, you don't need to keep escalating things or accuse him of being disingenuous.

>>11007

I am, your idea has literally been dominating the board aside from M's and (it's probably one other person) someone being deranged thinking he was me (saying sigma notation was too advanced for the board to understand was hilarious btw to whoever that is). I know I gave off the vibe before that I was quick to dismiss other people's ideas but most of the time it was VA not understanding that small examples are deceitful. It wasn't right of me to treat him that way even if he kept ignoring that analyzing small numbers doesn't show anything and I am sorry for acting that way.

I don't have anything against you, why would I come back if I hated you? You and VA have basically been the only people who post their work until recently.

>>11008

This is Jan by the way, I guess you two haven't interacted yet. I did address the calculations by the way, they were irrelevant to what I was talking about.

>>11009

>your idea has literally been dominating the board

For the millionth time this is VA's idea. It's been dominating the board because nobody else has been here aside from M. It's not my fault not much else is being talked about. Go find out where everyone else went.

>I know I gave off the vibe before that I was quick to dismiss other people's ideas

You spent a significant portion of last thread calling us all idiots.

You still haven't posted the factors of RSA2048, by the way.

>>11009

Thank you for not escalating things any further. Yes I am familiar with that post, I'm glad that person didn't poison higher maths (calculating the amount of operations a program does is an application of computer science which can find application of some very complicated formulas as well).

>>11010

What disproves it? Is his calculation wrong? What's the evidence that the special element exists?

>>11012

>What disproves it? Is his calculation wrong?

It's not the correct calculation. Assuming the element exists, the number of steps is the number of bits in d. I've said this so many times today it's starting to lose meaning. His calculation was based on an algorithm I wrote in an attempt to find the element this idea relies on, which had a completely different time complexity and search space.

>What's the evidence that the special element exists?

The evidence is in all of the posts from right before you found the board, one of the relevant posts being >>10689 this one. I looked in a very small constant set of elements in an exponentially-growing set (c*BigN is exponential right? I forget) and it worked for 100% of the numbers I tested when checking all unknowns, so does it not seem plausible that there could be one element within the exponentially-growing set that contains the same unknown for all cs? It's just an idea.

>>11013

It would be an elegant solution. Personally I do think it is an elegant solution (and also that it would give the missing piece in the proof that Zeta's zeroes lie on the critical strip), but I don't see any way for myself to make any progress to the answer in the way you've formulated. I think a common idea that everyone can work on would bring peace and direction to the board as well as give Jan a chance to prove he's changed. He said he would post the solution first - find the solution first and you shoot back better than words can.

>>11014

If you understand it now then thank you for bearing with me, whether you decide to work on it or not. I don't know how to progress with it at the moment either though. As for Jan, it's a nice sentiment, and it'd be great if we all got along, but I think this argument has been a pretty clear indicator that he hasn't changed, personally.

>>11016

I'm going to pull an AA here: did you even read my posts? I calculated the O notation instead of just saying it isn't valid evidence.

The full value of N-n can be calculated by finding a sequence of factors of (N-n) which when multiplied together are above d.

It does seem pretty hard to get any factors above 7, but it's a hint so >>7155

I'm not just posting my idea to post my idea someone asked me to

Example

c89174982716987

N-n = 552991 x 80629668

(-f, 552991, T+1).a = (80629670)

Let me break this down to show it's not arbitrary.

I'm saying if you only find a large enough part of (N-n) (in this case 552991), then a[(e, part, T)] gives you the other part of N-n. If you get a part of N-n that's too small you'll get a number that when multiplied by your number gives you N or N - a small number. It goes like this as you increase factors of N-n as the row with t = T

an =

N-1.. N-4.. N- some other small numbers.. (after reaching above d size) an = N-n

>>11018

>>11019

Are we really doing this again? If you have the solution, post the factors of RSA2048. If you don't have the solution, stop saying you have the solution.

>>11020

Did you just not read what I wrote or something? All I posted is an identity which can be tested for known numbers. It can be combined with the hints saying to factorize other variables, and PMA has done a lot of work on that. It's better than iterating additively because you can improve multiplicatively. (N-n) will always have some factors because it'll always be even.

>>11021

It's the same pattern you explained last thread when you said you had the solution.

>>11022

He asked for an original idea, I posted an original idea, if you don't like the idea you can calculate why you don't like it just like I did for yours

>>11023

I just want to know if you're going to take back what you said about having the solution or not.

>>11024

I take it back.

>>11025

Aaaaand no work is getting done. Just arguing. This is the influence of Jan on our board for everyone to see.

SHOW A SOLUTION FOR A C VALUE > 3M USING YOUR METHOD.

The process. In steps. Like AA did.

>>11026

And you have 10 Minutes lol

>>11026

You know the example I posted has 15 digits right? If you post a different number I can show you

>>11028

K. Show the steps. Nobody is doubting your skill. Show how it would work for RSA 2048, even if it can't factor the number.

N is known. n is not known.

So how do you arrive at N-n?

Explain the theory in detail. And please provide the conceptual steps, one by one.

>>11029

Start at a[t] = N in (e, 1)

Move to (e, 2) because 2 will always be a factor of (N-n)

Choose small primes from the factorization of f-1, d+1 or another variable that often shares a prime factor with N-1

If you're right or close enough (it's an integer division so you could be off by a little bit but that's unlikely to be useful) until n > d, a[t]*n = N-n

Sorry: after choosing small primes set current n to current n * small prime

>>11025

Thank you for finally being honest. I know you posted this because of what VA said so it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with me but for the record, if you do keep talking about it in this thread, I might have a look tomorrow (I'm burned out right now from arguing with you all day).

>>11030

Ok. So you're iterating low primes. Until n > d, a[t]*n = N-n

You made fun of me for iterating multiples of (f-1)/8 to solve the (x+n)^2 area for c6107.

Would you like to apologize for being a dick?

>>11030

If you're willing to apologize, I'd be willing to work with you again Jan.

I can show the idea with tattoo number but the primes are deceivingly small with it, for RSA100 they are way farther (beyond the capability of iterating). Also, for RSA size the value that a[t] * n_cur gets very far away from N, it's only the same as N in this example because N also divides these factors.

N-n = 2940

a[(e, 2, T)] = 1488, 1488 * 2 = N

a[e, 2^2, T)] = 744, 744 * 4 = N

a[(e, 2^2*3, T)] = 248, 248 * 12 = N

a[(e, 2^2*3*5, T)] = 49, 49 * 60 = 2940

a[(e, 2^2*3*5*7, T)] = 7, 7 * 420 = 2940

>>11033

Yeah I'm sorry for making fun of you. You're not iterating these primes, you have to find them in some other distribution that shares them like the factorization of the numbers in VQC's newest post (but those don't give enough common primes, it only gives you 5 and 41 for RSA100's N-n). Normally there wouldn't really be a reason to believe there's any distribution that shares some primes of N-n but that is one potential implication of his post saying to factorize d+1 and f-1

>>11035

Thanks Jan. Apology accepted.

Kinda weak lol.

I guess that's the best I'll get, but I'll take it.

Let's get to work faggots.

>>11035

Aaaand I'll actually study your idea instead of hating your guts lol. Working now.

>>11039

Legiterally, there has to be a pattern.

Everything else has a pattern.

Do primes think they're a one off or some shit?

Fucking egos.

>>11039

I think I already did that but maybe I didn't do it with RSA100. I do already have an algorithm for that so I'll have a look but I feel like if unknowns appear as chunks in knowns for RSA100 it's probably not going to be one of the main 6/18 elements we've been looking at, just based on how it seemed to scale.

>>11038

Yeah, look, I really fucking doubt it given everything he said today (like holy shit how can it possibly be that difficult to understand the pattern that everyone else understands, part of me thinks he did that on purpose to fuck with me) but I've never been the sort to write people off completely.

>>11039

Tried 18 elements and 15 unknowns and didn't find anything for RSA100. If it's in there somewhere it'll be another element further down. It would take 1.6 dodecillion years to check the entire search space though.

>>11042

I noticed you mentioned T-t somewhere. The factors of N-n come from (a-1)(b-1) which is 2(N-n). Since (X-x) is (a-1) and half that is T-t, the primes in T-t are the factors of (a-1). Pretty sure an equivalent distance for bn would have the factors of (b-1).

>>11043

I never mentioned that anywhere what are you talking about

>>10935

>>10936

>>10937

>>10938

>>10939

Hello everyone. Let's refocus.

>Why is it obvious that for RSA_100 that d+1, n-1, f-1, x and (x+n)-1 are divisible by 5?

>Why is it obvious that for RSA_100 that (x+n)(x+n) - 1 is divisible by 40 (8T + 1)?

>Why is it obvious that for RAS_100 that (d+n) mod 100 = 0?

>>11041

>>11042

Thanks for checking again, AA.

>>11045

Ok, here's an idea. Thinking out loud, just brainstorming over here.

Take d+1 and f-1

Key idea: check the binary endings of both for a match.

for RSA 100 it's 5?

For other numbers maybe it's different?

What can we do with (d+1)/5 and (f-1)/5 ?

Do these new knowns provide additional information towards solving the unknowns (n-1), x, and (x+n)-1 ?

Working backwards from the RSA 100 solution, what about (x+n)(x+n)-1 / 40 ?

(d+n) mod 100 = 0, so (d+n)/100 = ?

We can make everything for RSA 100 a known.

Interesting choice of words:

>Why is it obvious that for RSA_100 that d+1, n-1, f-1, x and (x+n)-1 are divisible by 5?

Maybe because something is visible in binary, like 5 = 101 as the ending chunk. If we can analyze our knowns using the binary method, create the unknowns, find a common multiple, etc. then maybe that's the "lock and key" Chris was describing.

>>11046

You're overcomplicating that part. Our decimal system makes it obvious they're divisible by 5 because they end in 5 visually.

>>11046

>Maybe because something is visible in binary, like 5 = 101 as the ending chunk

If you look >>10956 here, d+1, n-1 and f-1 all have different endings in binary, so that's not it.

>>11047

You're missing the point. Several of those numbers are unknown. How are we supposed to know they're divisible by 5?

>>11048

You should learn how this works AA.

There’s much nontrivial to find group operations (p-1, ECM, this idea).

>>11050

And you should learn the thing me and VA are looking at instead of being combative.

>>11048

This is amazing! This is what algorithm building looks like. I will be implementing this and seeing what makes it tick, please post more.

Different question: who came up with the formula for getElementBelowRoot and getElementBelowPrimeFactor?

>>11053

Thanks, M.

ECM is quite fascinating.

Have been able to piece together a Montgomery curve version implementing both phase 1 and 2 that enables factorization of numbers with 50-60 bit primes with reasonable performance. There is a good c++ example at github.com/onechip/ecm that you may find interesting.

Not entirely sure how to adapt phase 2 to the grid yet.

Regarding the formulas, an attachment in RSA #15 >>9102 included getElementBelowRoot as part of an algorithm introducing D, D2, and related elements. The getElementBelowPrimeFactor formula was posted originally to qresearch and subsequently in RSA #16 >>10064.

>>11053

>>11054

I originally thought of those as the answer to the question "what are the elements that d is between in row one?" To reach the formula, suppose n=1 for c, then (x+n)^2 would be (d+1)^2-c = f. Take the square root of that and one away and it's the x of D. The formula for the closest value in a[t] is similar, xx+e = 2na -> sqrt(2na-e) = x where a is the input.

>>11048

Hey PMA! Great work as always. Glad you're posting your work again.

Hey AA… Is that you derping around on the Q boards with mathspazz?

>>11058

No, I only ever post on /qresearch/ when I'm fishing for Chris. I've also been quite busy with IRL stuff.

>>11059

Hello AA. I've got an idea for a backwards search that is looking for a pattern in a[t].

Bid idea: at what [t] value(s) does the prime (a) show up?

Pick 10-20 c values that we have all knows for, or quickly calc them.

Semiprimes would be best, since they seem to have the highest fail rate with our theory.

Scan all values between a[1] and a[c*N] in (e,1) and (-f,1) looking for (a) in binary.

Look for similarities in WHERE matches show up.

We've proved that they DO show up.

Now let's explore Where.

>>11060

Lol. Typos. Whatever.

>>11060

>We've proved that they DO show up.

80% of the time for a, go look at all the terminal output pictures I posted last thread again

>>11062

so hooooow do we get to more than 80%?

>>11048

>Choose a random starting element (G) in (e,1) where a[t] is between e and c-1.

Minor change here.

A random starting element (G) in (e,1) where a[t] is between a[D] and a[C].

D is the element below the root of c and C is the element below c using the getElementBelowRoot method.

>>11064

Looks like you also need to go read my posts from last thread again because I already talked about that a bunch

>>11066

Have you gotten any further since then?

>>11067

If I had I would have posted about it

>>11068

But then, like… why are you so condescending about it when even you haven't elaborated???

>>11069

How am I being condescending?

>>11070

OMG JUST READ THE PREVIOUS THREADS, WHY SHOULD I TYPE IT OUT?!

😘

>>11071

>omg just type the same thing fifty times because I'm too lazy to open the previous thread

I am one more of these conversations with you away from just filtering you and pretending you don't exist because I am sick to fucking death of having to justify menial bullshit to you. I explained to VA last thread when I was working on the pattern that a and a+1 show up at the end of a[t]s in (e,1) and (f,1) 80% of the time. I went into detail and spent hours studying it, making terminal output and typing it out so that it could be referred back to later or even expanded upon (two examples of posts about this are >>10644 and >>10645 which are both towards the start of the explanation). Later on in that thread, despite having told VA a bunch of times, he kept telling me to look into it again, insinuating that they might actually always turn up (even though I proved that they don't) and I explained it to him again, with another person turning up asking me to explain myself again when they could have easily referred back to the original posts I'd made (see >>10755 >>10756 >>10767 >>10768 >>10770 >>10772 >>10790 among others). Having reread VA's post in this thread that I originally replied to (and he hasn't been here since so he couldn't have pointed it out), I didn't understand his latest idea right, and the frequency of them showing up is irrelevant to the idea (so none of what I'm typing out now is directed towards VA). But then you came in and asked me a question I talked about a great deal last thread, repeating the same situation I just outlined. Think about if in all of those posts I linked I had explained the same thing in detail again and again and ask yourself (a) how much thread space that would have taken up, (b) how much disruption that would have potentially caused when anyone else wanted to talk about something different, (c) how much of my time that would have taken, and (d) how meaningless it all would have been given anyone at any time can refer back to the original posts I already made explaining it.

I am not going to waste hours of my time going into detail about a pattern I already went into detail about several times. The information is still easily accessible. Not only would it be a giant waste of my time to explain everything again, it would also be a waste of the space within this thread. I'm not being condescending, you're being a fucking twat. Suck my dick.

>>11053

HeyM!

Are you still around and do you use Discord?

I can bring you to the Nerd bunker, if you're interested.

It's where a solid chunk of the work gets done.

>>11073

>No need to bite my (nor anyone else's) head off.

You've been doing this unwarranted behaviour police bullshit for months and it's fucking irritating, especially when every time you do it you're incorrect. Like right now. In your sarcastic redtext you said you wanted me to type it out again, and now you're saying you wanted me to link to a post. At no point in this conversation did you ask me to link to a post. Please stop attacking me every time I post something.

>>11075

Ignoring that links don't manifest themselves, fine.

You got anything new to show/discuss/talk about?

Any interesting coding you've been working with?

Any recent insight?

How've you been?

You doin' aight?

Times are stressful and shit.

Stay hydrated!

https://www.wikihow.com/Self-Reflect

>>11078

The image server appears to be down so if when it comes back up those images don't load properly I'll come back and post them again later. You haven't been here for a week and none of this is likely to advance us further anyway so it isn't exactly urgent.

OK, so by now, you know why BTC was created.

You know why it spiked after the beginning of Nov 17.

Trafficking.

Banking.

Shadow banking+.

Metals.

Information.

INTENTIONS.

Every [bit] of d and e tells you everything.

It's the OR(DE)R.

>>11080

Beautiful.

Patterns you expected quite rightly and patterns you will see, at greater magnitude.

Cloaked if you like.

I am going to show you what you're capable of.

Donald J Trump's best advice.

Think BIGGER.

Over and over.

The Construction of Triangle Numbers.

Golden.

President Trump.

Gen Flynn.

The bar is Set. It won't be set lower.

Great suffering against inclusion.

Many of the 6-4% do not meet Judgement.

You know the Art of the Deal.

God Bless America.

>>11074

I'm still here. I've been working on some of my own projects. I don't have DIscord, I prefer to keep my interactions that started in public in public.

>>11084

I kept my mouth shut for a while in the hopes that you all would realize it on my own if I went through some hints with you all. Maybe some of you do see it but haven't accepted it. I will say it now: This is a pure unadulterated LARP. Coming back to rehash the same thing over and over again when it dies, never responding to criticism/questions, hints becoming vaguer and vaguer to the point of impossibility of falsification, and, most notably baking it in with the news of the day/week/month to maintain the appearance of relevance.

The grid is a good idea. You've gotten far with it. Maybe you're just missing a piece. The fact is, hint-based research cripples critical thinking. It would be better for your soul and the souls whose foundation and approach to the study of mathematics you've crippled if you admitted it.

>>11083

>Patterns you expected quite rightly and patterns you will see, at greater magnitude.

If you're talking about the binary thing, we (or at least I) tried that with RSA100 and didn't find anything. And if you aren't talking about the binary thing then I have no idea what you're referring to. Why did you stop using your trip?

>>11086

You're entitled to your opinion as long as you don't spam it endlessly and you accept that some of us are convinced that this might be more than a LARP. There was a guy around when this started who started spamming the board about it and the only way to get him to stop was with a ban.

>>11085

That's like 1 month of QC research

They're extremely expensive to operate and build

>>11086

The damage that has been done is already done. It's been like one year of never responding to questions and then there was that one post saying he was just waiting for "the time." Just retroactively justifying bullshit. We haven't been discouraged from studying other maths and your posts have only encouraged us, so don't worry about it.

It takes one to know one

>>11089

>and then there was that one post saying he was just waiting for "the time."

In all fairness, disregarding the validity of anything else Chris has said that might be grounds for calling this a LARP, if you knew something that would cause all of the changes that this will cause, would you put it out publicly now when there's still the potential for the deep state people to find you and make you commit suicide with two shots to the back of the head?

>>11092

Good thing he's no longer an alcoholic!

You know how much they like double shots.

>>11092

If I convinced you that I had the solution then I convinced them

Yet I'm fine and I don't have viruses and I'm not running from assassins, etc. I even posted password encrypted archives with no context right before 8chan died just to see what would happen. Nothing happened. So if you don't choose to believe they meticulous hacked into my computer with NSA software and examined all of my 400 Java source code files to examine whether or not I solved it (I don't), then the only other alternative is that following hints doesn't lead to a solution.

>>11094

dat 47 tho…

Also, that could make some fun Navy Seal copypasta…

Here's my logic: if following hints leads to a solution, why am I fine for convincingly larping that I had one?

>>11096

because you're an insignificant faggot and no one cares?

>>11097

>>11096

Maybe?

I'm just throwing that out that.

>>11098

*out there

esscooz me.

>>11094

>If I convinced you that I had the solution then I convinced them

Maybe that's why he hasn't put out any 100% conclusive proof.

>>11096

You convinced us in the same way that Chris convinced us, and you think Chris is full of shit, so if the feds think Chris is full of shit, naturally they would also think you were full of shit.

>>11100

I kinda minced up the quotes but hopefully you get the point. You've thought Chris was full of shit forever anyway so I'm not going to try to convince you of anything.

Hello Anons!

>>11078

>>11080

Thanks AA. Those are pretty fucking cool graphs!! I've looked them over for patterns, and nothing is apparent at the moment as far as a consistent [t] location.

>>11081

>Every [bit] of d and e tells you everything.

>It's the OR(DE)R.

>>11083

>The Construction of Triangle Numbers.

>Golden.

Hmm. Interesting clues. Clearly related to the branching tree ideas, of course. d, e, and f all share binary data?

I've been turning everything over in my mind again, and I have one worthwhile idea.

Here it is.

The simple formulas from the beginning could also have hidden binary data.

For example, d-x=a

If a is prime, does it clearly show up as a binary tag embedded within d?

because as simple as it is, d-a = x and Chris kept reminding us that this is a lookup for x.

Also, f=2d+1-e and that includes all the pieces in the new hint. d, e, and f which is created using both. In row 1, sqrt(f) solves for x.

xx+e=2na keeps popping into my head too.

Anyhow, just thinking things over and looking for new paths to explore. I'll have time tomorrow to start crunching numbers.

>>11100

>>11101

Aren't you exposing a contradiction?

>>11103

Not that I'm aware of. You think Chris is LARPing. I don't. You said you convinced us that you had the solution but that you were LARPing I like how you used to find that insulting and now you're using it to describe yourself. If you were in our position, you probably wouldn't have been convinced, for the same reasons you think Chris is LARPing. So logically if the feds think Chris is full of shit, they would have also thought that you were full of shit and not looked into anything you did. Where's the contradiction?

>>11104

If there's substance here, why did you think there was substance there?

>>11105

I guess I'm just gullible, I dunno. Doesn't really change anything.

>>11106

If the maths didn't do anything, then we wouldn't be here.

(Or, in other words, I must be gullible, too.)

>>11106

>I guess I'm just gullible, I dunno. Doesn't really change anything.

The problem is, if you fell for one LARP wrapped in the same verbage as the initial putative "truth", how do you know there's any substance to the initial one?

Did you consider perhaps Chris was just like Jan, in the sense that he wanted people to work on his idea but unlike Jan he didn't stop the LARP when it showed its value but continued it for his own amusement?

The journey is more important than the destination. Would you not say you know more math now than before?

Sometimes the bravest thing you can do is admit you were wrong, it's also when the healing can begin. God bless you all.

>>11108

Oh yeah totally, I guess we should all leave the board and move on with our lives, you first

Just for fun, 31

:D

>>11109

>>11110

Suppose outside of whether it is true, that the hints don’t lead anywhere, just to consider your own ability for a moment. Could you develop an algorithm/progress just by your own idea? I ask this because you said it best yourself in . If the fruit VQC produces are people that only know how to follow him, I don’t want to be one of them. None of my professors were like that. They were there to teach, they weren’t there on an ego-driven mission to fix people’s character. What kind of teacher produces students that can’t do anything without him? Truly good teachers make leaders, not followers.

Meant to link >>10628.

> We need Chris to tell us the answer.

>>11113

>>11112

I don't make algorithms. Dass not my yob here.

As for Chris being a teacher… that's never how this worked.

Think of it like this:

The nerds were in a classroom and I wandered by and started drawing on the board.

Then this Chris guy walked in, lit a doobie laced with DMT, and threw a problem onto the floor.

We all looked at it, saw what it looked like it be, and couldn't help but get to work on it.

Does Chris work here? Is he a TA? Does he have credentials?

Doesn't matter.

There's a problem that he claims is doable.

And so far, it seems like he's right.

You wanna talk shit? Disproof it.

>>11114

I abhor spending my time talking about other people in the third person. However, it proves necessary when LARPs become an obstacle to true maths.

>>11115

But that's how english works…

If I just stuck to "he", then you wouldn't know who the subject was.

Silly.

>>11115

>when LARPs become an obstacle to true maths

The vast majority of this thread is you and Jan trying to stop me and VA from looking into a specific idea. The only obstacle to math right now is you two refusing to accept a difference in opinion and filling this thread with irrelevant posts. If you care so much about math, stop bugging me and post some math.

>>11117

>stop bugging [niggaz] and post some math.

I concur.

Trying to make a case against a specific approach is one thing.

Shitting on Chris for the sake of doing so doesn't benefit anyone.

>>11111

Chek'd!!!!!

If 41,

Could have replied with 271 and done (a*b).

>>11121

Jan. Get it through your thick head already. I don't care what you think about Chris. Post math or stop posting.

>>11119

Your line of formulas actually motivated me to update my ancient real-time grid generator. I added a smarter form of element validation and more forms of viewing the cell. Haven't written the formula but I think there should be a t that will always be valid based on the 1*n factorization, since moving to lower rows is dividing a[t] by n.

How to Be Correct About Everything All the Time

>>11117

>>11122

>stop bugging me and post some math.

>Post math or stop posting.

YUP.

On /qr/ this type of behavior is an easy way to spot a Shill.

Distraction, misdirection, etc.

Why is it a problem if AA and I work on our idea?

We're skeptical too, but Love this problem and have invested thousands of hours on it. You should work your own angles or STFU and KYS Faggot(s).

>>11114

>Then this Chris guy walked in, lit a doobie laced with DMT, and threw a problem onto the floor.

Bahahahaha

Pretty much Topol!

K. Thinking over a bunch of possible ideas. Here's an interesting one that I worked trough mentally smoking a cig outside just now. Small c, and a classic, so it may have no bearing on actual truth, but it found (n-1) lol.

c6107

e=23

in binary is 10111

which is 16 + 7= 23

(f-1) = 134-1

133 in binary is 10000101

which is 128 + 5 = 133

binary chunks are 7 and 5

7 * 5 = 35 = (n-1)

There's some math for you faggots, even if it only works for c6107. Did that smoking my cig from memory.

Jan and M, post some work showing a path to a solution, like that.

Also, this is a new solution method that has never been proposed on this board. We need creative outside the box thinking if we're going to figure this out lads. Anyone got ideas they're willing to post?

>>11126

Lurker Anons? Step up.

>>11128

Love you Topol <3

Thanks.

Let's get some ideas flowing.

>>11126

GAnon here, I've been working on starting my own business because I figured I can't just do math all the time. I work on this stuff sometimes but I find it hard to find time now. Here are some of my biggest points that I never really fully explored in order of my belief of priority

1) I noticed with my console application (which you should use if you want to get what I'm saying) is that all the patterns looked cool. Moreover they all could be calculated. For instance, with the A grid, there were patterns all over the place. There were some places where you could only connect to points with the same A on 3 other axes, but there were some where you could go on 6 axes. The D grid always looked the same with a different offset centered at (e,n)=(-d^2, -d). Basically my idea with the grids (a, x, d, (x+n), (d+n), f) was that you could look at your current records values and know immediately where other records are. For example (and this is made up formula) "Oh I'm at (e=23,n=50,x=15)? Well I know there is a record at (23+2*15, n-15, x-1)" I have found many patterns so for a given point you could "travel" to and I had them in graphics I just can't find them right now. Basically the grids are the paths you can take. You start at (e, N), and your destination is at (e, less than N). The "algorithm" would be to look at those patterns and basically try to stay along the same e value as you travel up to decrease N and increase A/decrease X. However what was most interesting was the f grid. (or -f grid). Every other pattern (d, a, x) had designs but they were all almost entirely composed of horizontally facing parabolas. Theoretically if you could "follow" these grids up to the correct value, it would be mostly composed of leaps on horizontal parabolas and the main direction we want to go for this is vertical. Now there would be two ways to solve this. Either you find a way to reduce the problem to simpler terms repeatedly, which seems hard, or you use the F grid. With the f grid, there were parabolas facing downward. This was an interesting pattern to me. I thought maybe if I could start at your starting value and jump to the F grid, you could make your way directly up towards n=0 without having to bounce horizontally a million times on the other grids. Especially for high values, you'd have a horizontal shift of 2*H+1 for a vertical shift of 1 versus the opposite which you'd have with the f grid. I haven't really gone further into this but this is what I want to do when I have the free time. I want to enumerate all these patterns and make a console application where it shows you your location and potential "grids" you can travel to and then different keypresses will "move" you to a different record. I'd be happy to dig up those pics and elaborate if ppl are interested

2) Another thing is VQC said something about "going negative" or something along those lines. I had "independently discovered" (unsure if you guys did too) a way to generate another record from within the same (e,n). If you looked at the original pic VQC posted it would generate a record but it would always skip a record (like t=1, 3, 5, 7). I then figured out if you reverse the algorithm and go backwards until you are negative, then reverse the algorithm again to go positive, it gives you the records you would have been skipping. That blew my mind still haven't really dug into why it happens. This also leads me to believe for each "e,n" there are like two strands of numbers intertwined as it goes and perhaps that looking at every record in a cell is misleading and we should be looking at every other record and we may find more patterns.

3) Another thing I had always wondered was if there were any properties over the records. For instance you take a record at (1,3) and add it to a record at (3, 5) and get some new record. I always thought this would be kind of a leap though

4) I think we also might want to look at continued fractions. I think this algorithm relies on the fact that we can get the integer square root so fast we can spend other time calculating other shit. Enter ancient babylon, they had written continued fractions on the walls. Why? idk. My number theory professor brought them up and I was doing some and I noticed that the final term in the repeated continued fraction was always twice a factor of the original number. I showed my teacher and he said he didn't know about it. I'm not sure how nobody had noticed that so I think either he was hiding something or he was just a complete normie who was just good at regurgitating math

5) I also think another thing we could look at is the pythagorean theorem. aa + bb = cc or also cc - bb = aa. What if we squared our c? Could we then find the differences of squares? If we do that, there are actually 4 pairs of squares that could solve it. Again idk.

Sweet sweet hyperbolic geometry.

>>11130

Look I'm here to encourage you guys to continue but I have to step in and criticize you for something:

>Another thing is VQC said something about "going negative" or something along those lines

> I then figured out if you reverse the algorithm and go backwards until you are negative, then reverse the algorithm again to go positive, it gives you the records you would have been skipping. That blew my mind still haven't really dug into why it happens

I have no idea what you're saying. I can't reproduce your hypothesis. I don't know where to build up on it.

It's literally so vague that I can't prove or disprove it.

It's no different from me saying "when I express the digits backwards, the orange and blue numbers are the representative figures that can reconstruct the two prime factors of a semiprime number". It's got math in it, but it's entirely nonsensical.

Up the game a little bit. Produce either a program or a mathematical expression to actually write what you're saying. Don't waste everyone's time over here.

>>11130

>>11133

Regarding point 2. I think he is referring to what we've called "chains" or "sequences". Take (3, 6). It consists of, what appears to be, two independent "chains" / "sequences". Specifically (3:6:4:3:1:19) and (3:6:16:9:7:37).

I'm unsure exactly of what he is referring to, in terms of algorithm, but I think it boils down to, move "backwards" by subtracting 2n from x, if you then invert the sign of x, you'll "swap" sequence. I believe this was covered in some of the earlier threads.

Example:

(3:6:16:9:7:37) - Move "back" by: x = 9 - 2*6 = -3

(3:6:-2:-3:1:7) - Flip -3 to 3

(3:6:4:3:1:19)

(DON'T TRUST THIS!)

As a side note, all valid x-values in (e, n) are the equations where (yy + e) = 0 (mod n) for some y where y % 2 == e % 2 (Case when y % 2 != e % 2 => y is a d in terms of e). Don't take what I'm saying for granted, I haven't double checked my notes, might be the other way around.

>>11133

>I'm here to encourage you guys to continue

>only other post is >>11108

>can't even into basic grid terminology

>>11134

>>11135

Lmao how are you defending the need to imagine what someone meant

Oh wait.

>>11134

>I'm unsure exactly of what he is referring to, in terms of algorithm

And that's all that needs to be said. Press him for more information, if he can't be clear about his idea he shouldn't be wasting your time. Don't try to make his point for him.

>>11135

It's called tough love. Otherwise you'll go loose with your words and end up god knows where.

>>11136

>>11137

So much toxicity and hostility on this board.

>>11138

Another perpetual victim mentality

You fit right in here, take a seat.

Dungeon Numbers (extra) - Numberphile

kinky.

What does this prove? Some of the most gorgeous visual "shrink" proofs ever invented

Turning property… shifting property… hey! We work with a The Grid!

I wonder if there's anything applicable here…

>>11138

You'd almost wonder if this board is even about math anymore.

Vagueness is deceit. Mathematics is clear. Remove this obstacle or you will go nowhere and are a waste of my time. I’m willing to bet anything this board will be nowhere in a years time under VQC’s care. Jan, PMA, those who can see the truth, I’m working on something for you all. Contending with incoherent rambling is not my cup of tea. Get as butthurt as you want and pretend it’s going somewhere, I’ll just set my calendar.

>>11144

You're the one who's butthurt, otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to make a post like this and you'd just post the math when it's ready.

>>11146

Hmmm. Is the image server down again?

>>11147

Appears so

>>11148

Hey AA, I have some ideas.

Integrating the triangle ideas with the binary chunks.

The Lock and Key method must have binary factors/chunks as well.

Interesting that a triangle method mods analysis of c6107 turns out similar results to what I posted a few days ago.

(f-1)/8 = 133/8 = 16 mod 5 — and binary chunk is 101 = 5

e/8 = 23/8 = 2 mod 7 — binary chunk is 111 = 7

(2d+1)/8 = (78 *2 +1)/8 = 19 mod 5 — binary chunk is 5

So the binary chunks for this smaller example match the mods. This won't work for larger examples clearly, but it's still very interesting to me.

>>11149

PMA did more work on the triangle method than anyone else.

PMA, you got any thoughts on this? Maybe time to revisit the triangles with a fresh perspective? Any insight you have would be appreciated man.

>>11149

I tried putting a few triangle-related variables into the work I've been doing and they all seemed to have the same significance as the other variables (I would point to that graph but obviously the image server's acting up). But then that never took into account the actual triangle algorithm (which he never really explained). It's as good of a lead as anything else at the moment but I don't know that I'd be much help with it.

>>11151

Ok, well I have some ideas that I'm exploring.

They could use your expertise.

However, the concepts haven't been tested on enough c values.

No requests for work, just laying out a plan here.

I'm thinking that it would be helpful to be able to see a breakdown for any given c of every key piece of data, in decimal and binary, side by side.

This is what I'm building on Excel. Lol. Got my Java books in the mail today!

Especially given the crumbs I posted earlier today (server wtf!!) and the recent hints here: >>11081

More like a key values calculator for decimal and binary. Provide c, a, b. Everything laid out clearly to search for patterns. It would be even more dope if PMA could help us generate triangle breakdowns.

Look.

d, e, and f contain the key to solving the (x+n)^2 area. I'm sure of it. We came SO close. Maybe what we were missing is an understanding of the mods and their relation to the binary chunks in each variable.

Food for thought.

>>11146

I CLAIM TEXAS AND HAWAII!

(The latter as my vacation home/dependent.)

>>11153

Shit.

We gotta save Hawaii for Chris cuz he likes to surf.

I'll claim Texas and Puerto Rico, then.

I won't have to give as many shits about Puerto Rico, anyway.

>>11133

Didn't have to write a paragraph for "please expand". I'm not trying to waste anyone's time. I was trying to give a little exposition on why I haven't been posting and responding to the other guy.

Here are some other posts of mine that didn't get much response:

This is what I was talking about with the grid patterns.

>>1762 (Grid Patterns. Definitely worth looking into for visualization of all grids. Skip to 7777 for F (-F is the parabolas))

>>9018 (Found the square pyramidal numbers here in e,1)

>>10437 (Code I made to look at binary representation of numbers in grid (helpful))

>>8988 (Proof that (xx - aa) is divisible by d) (>>8993 alg idea)

>>6925 >>6920 Maybe use this to predict divisibility patterns??

As for your sticking point. This (>>11134) is what I thought I meant but it seems like that was incorrect. I could have sworn I had something that worked like that but it seems I was wrong.

>>11157

The last two posts if >>1762 thread are sort of what I was thinking by enumerating patterns and trying to reduce

>>11160

Make him post confirmation with his remaining unburned trip or nobody is going to take this seriously. You obviously know what you're talking about but we've been duped before.

>>11160

>There is a single slide required to show what is needed. Keeping this slide's values as defined in pic related and multiplying c by four, a', b', c', d', e', f', x', n' where c' = 4c, all variables become even but NOT necessarily units of four.

>Some may even see now where we're going. What units increment values at [e,1] and [-f,1] in the grid?

x or [t] increment values in (e,1) and (-f,1)

4(d+n)^2 - 4(x+n)^2 = 4 * c

new triangle base is 2(x+n) and other side is 2(x+n)-1

This removes the need for a center unit (8Tu +1) in the (x+n)^2 area. And makes 4 equal squares, with equal sides, simplifying the problem.

>>11162

>new triangle base is 2(x+n) and other side is 2(x+n)-1

On second thought: This is not correct. 4c makes the problem simpler. Each of the 8Tu has sides of 2(x+n). No middle unit.

Its not that one you mean then.

>>11165

No idea what this post is about but if it's about the trip I'm talking about either the one he used here >>10446 or the one he used here >>10276

I see no reason why you wouldn't make a post with this trip to prove that you're Chris or someone who knows him. Both these big posts haven't presented anything new that would bring us closer to the solution other than "multiply c by 4" and "sums have properties". If you had any intention of helping us figure this out, you'd give us substantially more than that, and you wouldn't even need a dead man's switch because you'd just show us the solution and defeat the purpose of having one. So if your intention isn't to show us the solution, given what you said about a dead man's switch, the main reason for these posts must be that you're identifying yourself. If your intent is to identify yourself, not using your trip makes zero sense. What are you trying to accomplish right now and why are you not posting with the trip?

>>11164

>>11160

> Trump is the Messiah

You're literally insane.

You're nothing but a slimy Jew showing his true colors declaring his fake messiah.

Also, nothing you provided here amounts to anything else except new variables with no derivation. Also, factorizing integers doesn't knock out bitcoin or even SSL because they both use ECC, a completely different problem. Even assuming the derivation of a quick factorization algorithm can be extended relatively easily to ECC, nobody here except the people who studied real math would be capable of doing that because ECC is defined using traditional math and you told them traditional math was garbage the entire time.

>>11160

Well, I'm erect.

TELL US M0AR!

>>11164

Paradoxes are actually a beautiful and valid part of maths. The Banach-Tarski paradox of duplicating an object for example. Supposing a set that contains all subsets, as well, then follows that that set is smaller than its own powerset. As far as replacing all of maths goes, it’s odd that someone who can’t form a coherent idea would try to replace maths. It’s almost as if they want to make maths worse. Picking on symbols in maths is surface level and is the footprint of a failure in the subject.

Maths would be exactly the same if you replaced all of the Greek symbols with words that describe the concept (albeit more convoluted). VQC’s attack on maths is a strawman and, as is abundantly clear, is not backed up by any ability to make maths clearer.

>>11166

Didn't 8kun reset all the trips?

Are the ones you're asking for before or after that habbened?

>>11171

After

>>11171

"You never close your eyes anymore when I kisssssss your lippppppps"

Top of the morning to you Tops :)

>>11174

enough fooling around from me.

Bottom left first board… three identities that show three equations that hold true… showing either three expressions that are always divisible by a or three expressions that are always divisible by x (0 mod a and 0 mod x). Notice that sneaky bustard remainder is involved in exactly the same way each time.

Then, take that and create an expression for n, x, ONLY in terms of a and KNOWN VALUES.

With the three identities you have what you need. I was going to auth 3,4, and 5, but I think someone will get there soon.

Happy hunting you absolutely outstanding faggots of the highest order.

>>11176

Remember.

All you need is the "a"s all on one side and not to cancel out. That’s why you need all THREE identities

Where we're going, we don't need trips.

>>11172

>>11171

>>11160

>Deadman Switch

Even if you crack factorization, the NSA has already moved on its recommendation to ECC, which you will not have cracked. So there's no need for concern. Your life is safe.

>The c/d/e/f again

Is there a new thing here, or is it the same equations with the redundant number of variables in them?

>F" reduction "v"

Can you actually state what you mean?

>Units different to magnitude may be useful, so they should be PRESERVED and expressed appropriately

This is absolute nonsense. Units have nothing to do with arithmetic/algebra etc. please cut the flowery words and start respecting the time of the people on here.

>the integer factorisation problem only SEEMS difficult because you have to SEARCH for it

Yes and space travel SEEMS difficult because you have to reach ESCAPE VELOCITY. What are you saying here?

>The solution to the integer factorisation immediately takes out BTC and every cryptocurrency that uses modular exponentian [sic] in its MINING infrastructure

Except BTC uses SSH, *not* modular exponentiation. Do you understand the difference between signing and the proof of work algorithm?

>4-6% of people will not except President Trump as the planned ambassador (called the Messiah previously) to the political and physical delegation and presence of our Creator

OK now you've lost me forever. This is outright anti-christ level satanism. Jesus is not "God's ambassador", he hold God's spirit in our physical world. Go to hell and take VQC with you.

For ALL c, where c is an integer and also the difference of two squares.

>>11179

c=ab, d is the root, e is the remainder, the sum of f and c is the square with sides d+1.

The sum of a and x is d.

The value n is what is added to the root of c, d, to make the side of the larger square, the square of the sum of x and n is what is added to c, to make the larger square.

(d+n)(d+n) = c - (x+n)(x+n)

Also, learning about mining. For BTC and others, mining difficulty is determined by essentially how long a product is that must be factorised, and this problem also allocates transactions using the problem to ensure the overall network is not controlled by the same parties. So, yes, this solution means BTC mining needs a rewrite because this will put that network offline or allow a criminal enterprise to entirely subvert the network on day 1.

If you don't know the relationship between this, discrete logarithms and eliptic curves, then you don't see then you won't see your error.

The 4-6% statement was authentication, for anons who know the previous background, to filter out some, and finally with a message to shit up Barry and Michelle so much that Michelle put out a statement yesterday. Which you clearly missed.

>>11180

There should be a plus sign where the minus is for the difference of two square equation. (d+n)(d+n)-(x+n)(x+n) = c

>>Units different to magnitude may be useful, so they should be PRESERVED and expressed appropriately

>This is absolute nonsense. Units have nothing to do with arithmetic/algebra etc. please cut the flowery words and start respecting the time of the people on here.

What are units that use irrational constants in quantum mechanical probability distributions?

What does the constructability of irrational constants have to do with dimensions?

What is dimensional analysis?

What are partial dimensions with respect to fractals?

What is the golden ratio unit and why does it have magical properties? How can I add one to a number and create it's square. How can I subtract one from a number to create it's reciprocal?

What is the result of finding the derivative of e to the x with respect to x?

Why does it matter that there are numbers that are constructed and act as virtual quantum computers for tasks, such as irrational constants that make integration trvial or solve engineering challenges.

>Plasma rifle in the 50 watt range.

Only what you see pal. For now.

>>11175

>waves tangentially

>>11183

Waits for a good timestamp…

>>11179

<the integer factorisation problem only SEEMS difficult because you have to SEARCH for it

>Yes and space travel SEEMS difficult because you have to reach ESCAPE VELOCITY. What are you saying here?

Means you gotta jump.

No need to worry about escape velocity if your motion isn't based on the time to get there.

It's like interstellar travel… the aliens aren't coming here via 3/4D methods, and basic travel would be based on magnetics instead of combustion-propulsion.

One way fights, one way goes with the flow.

Go with the flow and just get there instead of inefficiently sorta pulling something off.

>>11178

I disagree. Do you not remember the password? It's entirely effortless to type a thing into a bloody text box dude.

>>11179

> Except BTC uses SSH

You mean SHA, right? 'cause if you're going to shit on someone and their post, you better be right when you shitpost. SSH is a secure communication protocol and is not related to bitcoin or any other shit coin. You knew that, right?

>>11187

>SSH is a secure communication protocol

right now I'm the idiot, it's a secure network protocol

>>11176

So my take on this is that we have ONE set of "unique" equations, but we're still missing two?

So for our goal, the grid isn't necessary, just the discovery of the variables and (or) somehow use it to determine the other missing equations?

Then once we have the equations, we can just solve them together and bam we have a?

>>11176

>I think someone will get there soon

He says for the millionth time almost three years in

>>11164

I get that the number on the whiteboard is divisible by 19, and that's one of the clues that led to the binary chunk thing VA and I have been working on, but I've asked you about that pattern (first picture in the OP) and whether or not it's useful a couple times and you've ignored my questions, so how are we supposed to know what to do with it?

>>11174

>>11176

That sure is a whole lot of algebra but none of it involves using t=1 to x=c-d in (e,1) and (f,1) as a search space where at least half the area is removed each iteration over O(log q) where q is the length of d in bits, or anything else we've done.

>Pretty sure anons can do the rest.

>you have what you need

What is the rest? Have what we need for what purpose? You've expressed x and n in terms of c, d, e and a for what is to us currently an unknown reason.

Just being honest here but it kinda seems like you're doing your usual thing where you turn up after a couple months just to show you haven't forgotten that we exist but you're still stalling waiting for something Q-related to happen. If you want us to figure it out, you know this isn't the way to do it. If you are stalling, why not cut the shit and tell us that in plain English?

>>11190

Kindly let go of the Q-timeline coping method for a larp not delivering.

>>11182

>>11180

>>11189

None of this is an answer to his criticism and is only designed to impress the typical reader who does not have the intuition for true math necessary to see it for what it is. Continuing to, as deceptively as possible, attempt to gaslight the board into believing you’ve posted progress when you’ve posted nothing but unsolvable identities and smorgasboards of variables which have unknowns on all sides is something I can no longer stand to not say a spade is a spade. You are astronomical units away from posting anything that factors an integer yet are trying to pretend you can rewrite math. Stop LARPing and come clean.

>>11193

"Choose" a value c (correction)

>>11193

Spoiler alert.

The left hand side sums to zero.

When the right hand side is factored, those are the possible roots. One of those roots is obviously a, when a is zero, both sides are zero.

Funny, we were just talking about ensuring information is not lost.

There's your algebraic version. Counter-intuitive at first glance as the very last page doesn't appear to equate until you remember how to factor quadratic and things like values for roots that include (perhaps always) a=0, a=1, a=-1, etc

Hmm, almost makes sense that its a sixth degree polynomial in The End.

>>11192

Notice the bottom left of the last image. As discussed earlier, three unknowns (a,x,n), three equations for these supplied. Expansion supplied.

You want me to factor the roots on the RHS beside the constants (a=0,..)?

It sounds like you want to have a try first, right?

By-the-way, it has sounded like a LARP. However, something was different. And here we are, demonstrating a sixth degree polynomial for factoring by calculation that includes the constant values we didnt talk about before. Maybe they magically showed up. Guess you get lucky sometimes, right?

>>11197

Just to absolutely clear, I am not posting as another person who I am replying to. Its going to look like it in a bit.

Take the LHS first. Try 8, 1 and 65 for d, e and c. Then try other values from a c of your choice and calculated d and e, where the sum of the square of d and e equals c

>>11199

Look at the earlier ones BEFORE the very last. All of them were balanced

>>11192

Kindly stop replying to my posts, he's the one who mentions Q shit, not me

>>11200

I like how I'm the one person out of those who did anything with your whiteboard pictures who doesn't think 100% of what you say is bullshit and you ignored my post

>>11201

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I'm not going to waste my time transcribing this, post it here where I can put it into Mathematica and show it for what it is.

>>11202

So if I said I was waiting for the Q drop you’d give me the time of day too, even if I posted equations that don’t even work?

There’s nothing special about roots related to integer factorization here. Those are already well described in the relevant material on roots of unity and square roots mod N and are a discrete search problem. Even if this arrived at equations which describe the roots it would still be a discrete search problem. Chris is shoving the whole problem into a smaller looking subset over and over again.

>>11202

Thanks AA.

I'm getting there.

These expansions are an absolute arse to get right when you want to keep all the info, so I've been on my feet at this office since yesterday afternoon. There's no furniture except a couple of counter/bar chairs so EVERY joint and muscle aches from standing.

I will get to every question AA for what that assurance is worth.

What I would like to get across is WHY this has appeared intractable and to show ALL the working.

>>11204

You're the only one who replied to my post so you should already know I think this algebra thing is him stalling. Direct this towards him, not me.

>>11205

But why are you even doing it? Is it going to lead to a solution? Because every other time you've done something like this with the implied intent being bringing us to a solution, you get to a point, you disappear for several months, and then you come back with something completely different. Are you or are you not stalling for time?

>>11206

The 2020 election is already right around the corner. Imagine if we started with what exists already in 2017 and worked to improve it instead of this and the progress that could have been made.

>>11208

I don't remember ever having seen those equations, and I couldn't find them in the grid patterns thread.

The guy that is telling you existing math sucks can’t even write an equation properly or express an idea coherently without condescension. Does anyone remember when M joined and VA wrote that professors are arrogant faggots who can’t math or whatever it was? God that was cringy. I want to share real math with the people who are following who don’t have the time like you or I do to contend with whether these hints are made up or not.

>>11210

Yet they are very simple.

You have seen the middle one over and over, half its value is in every entry for a at [e,1]

The second equation is usually x^2 + e = 2na

>>11211

How many equations do you need for three unknowns?

>>11213

At least two?

>>11212

I answered your questions, can you answer one of mine now? We've been in this situation a ton of times now where you introduce a new concept implying that it will bring us closer to a solution and then you take off for months before doing it again with a completely different concept. Is this because you're stalling or do you actually think a method of attempting to show us the solution that has been shown many times to not work is suddenly going to work?

>>11214

We can't get to the maths before we get to the lies in the way. He's not even defending his broken equation or replying to me and you know why. Please pull the switch on this LARP; what you share people read.

>>11210

AA, if you take those three equations. Use the bottom one for x. The middle one for n.

Then, put your new expressions in the top one and see where it takes you. I will be here.

Do you remember AA? I said it would be you. Must be a gut feel ;) Last man standing is the King.

>>11214

You need three generally.

If you start with those three equations and check your working at each stage with a worked example, you will start seeing it.

I've got the pictures up, there may mistakes in the RHS of the final one where the LHS with only c,d,e in is zero, I'm checking it now manually which as you know, is a giant ballache

>>11216

>Use the bottom one for x. The middle one for n.

Use them how? Redefine them in terms of x and n? Or something else?

>Then, put your new expressions in the top one

Which one is "the top one"?

>>11218

Why do you refuse to answer a simple question? Like I said, I'm the one person currently here who doesn't think everything you say is a lie. Dancing around my questions isn't helping.

>>11217

>>11217

Can you please categorically state we're not working together. This is priceless.

>>11220

3 years, forever on stage 1, always waiting to see it, never quite there; always one more step.

>>11220

7 times you said you would provide the solution in the coming days, 7 times it didn't happen, 18 threads of coming back to rehash the maths you failed to finish for 10 years.

>>11219

Use the bottom one to define x. -> you are here

Use the middle one to define n

Substitute x and n into the top one with your expressions.

Methodically expand until you have anything with a on the right and no terms with a but only c,d, and e on the left. -> my demos are up to here

Can't work out the problem is with the very last stage -> Sir Numnuts shill is here

Realise what the problem is (I've literally just said it)

Understand why the problem hid itself.

Wonder what else is like this -> you are going to be here

Discover almost everything is.

Turn autopilot off.

>>11223

I will do all of that as soon as you answer the question I've asked you like three times now

>>11222

7 deadly sins.

7 ways to win.

7 are your burning fires.

7 your desires.

I lived alone. My mind was blank.

I needed time to think to get the memories from me mind.

What did I c? Can I believe? Just what I saw that night was real and not just fantasy.

>>11225

There was someone else who stared at nothing until "God" started speaking, he started a rather success religion.

>>11224

Sure.

Every time previously I was overwhelmed with a desire to take the power, torture our enemies, destroy all competitors or lose myself in orgies of hookers and cocaine. Every time I was overtaken with ego and physically couldn't get myself to post. When my motive was purer the fog lifted only eventually to repeat that cycle. The power, the sheer power in this and what else there is, it is extremely seductive.

Now, had i told the reasons, it would have sounded crazy. I did know the day would come and it must mean my time is nearly up. I've no desire for any more money, cocaine or hookers, my liver is failing, this pic is from the office I've hired. I'm the only here and this is from a few days.

It sounds pretty tragic but I am happy, I've had a good life and no longer have anything "I want". I also discovered as an autist of my type, have a fully dressed sex doll just to lie next to at night might be a treatment for loneliness. I was lucky with the way I look but apart from putting on an act to fit in, well, no one makes sense to me really.

I'm sorry we couldn't complete earlier. My honest view is that this a Higher Power thing and that we're getting there now because I don't have time to thoroughly abuse the power and do more harm than good.

I hope I answered the right question.

>>11229

STOP.

I forgive you.

Please for god's sake, stop.

>>11227

You answered part of the right question. If you actually think things are different now, wouldn't it make sense to try a different method of bringing us to the solution than one you've tried over and over? By that I mean instead of presenting us with a concept and some vague hints you could try something more to the point.

>>11230

Stop what.

I said I'm happy now.

Don't be a drama queen.

This is why I dont answer many questions.

>>11229

There is still a chance of God’s forgiveness. Recant the false claims. Recant claiming Trump is the Messiah. You can be an anon again but only if it’s sincere.

>>11231

You're describing today, I think you just don't know it yet. Those three equations.

>>11234

You've said the exact same thing about several other concepts. I'll go through the algebra in a sec but do you at least understand where I'm coming from? This is pretty much the exact same situation you presented us with in February except this algebra doesn't even have an O(log n) algorithm included within it somewhere.

>>11235

Totally get it. On the surface it looked like total schizo, take yours meds, have a lie down etc.

Fortunately mental people cant see the delusion like that. I'm surprised anyone is still here.

I am not surprised this is how it is now, though.

>>11235

Watch what happens the MOMENT you actually get 100% what you want. Everything went offline the moment I posted first photo.

We'll do it. But then that WILL it.

Everybody will be offline.

Everybody.

Cash will be King again for a time.

Pay on delivery etc.

>>11237

So when you say put those three equations into the "top one", is the solution supposed to be the equation in this picture? >>11193

>>11240

The left hand side is good.

I haven't finished the right hand side because we've been chatting :)

But yeah, the non-trivial roots are on the right, just need to be simplified and factorised for the final general solution.

Funny how anti-climatic it feels! Its a hot evening here, I'm alone, I feel sick and I just shit blood. I've got booze, speed, weed and coke though so I'll push on through with checking the RHS.

>>11241

So once the right side is correct are you suggesting that the next step to define a in terms of c, d and e?

>>11223

>>11234

>>11237

>>11239

Hello VQC! I'll get to work on the equations once my work day is finished. Nice to see some algebra equations back in play. Still here, still working to understand.

Are you willing to let us know if we were on the right track with the binary hints? Do they come into play with the algebraic solution?

>>11242

Correct.

>>11243

So good to see you.

I'll do what I can in the time left to be of any service.

>>11244

Well I don't have a whole lot else to do today so I'll be around whenever you've figured out your errors to see if it actually works with examples if you want.

>>11246

Great.

>>11247

How's it coming along?

>>11241

Non-trivial, you say…

>>11249

Good. It's quarter to 3am. Bacon is cooling down.

The most concise equation is the fourth one down with the blue boxes.

It shows us that regardless of the "a" we are after (the largest "a" nearest the square root but smaller), a can be zero, one, etc.

I'm going to bed as the bacon is eaten. Good to see you this week.

>>11250

Finally. Tops, if anyone was going to get that… it's not about the money, it's about sending a message.

I think you're going to like this.

>>11251

When are you going to be back? I was just starting to go through the algebra in the pictures you've posted to see if anything doesn't work. Also what relevance does O(log n) have with this algebra stuff?

>>11223

>>11251

VQC Bacon Eating Faggot lol.

> it's not about the money, it's about sending a message.

That's why I'm still here. Let's throw that fucking ring into Mount Doom.

Working on the algebra now.

>>11256

All your examples are c=65? Let's keep it simple.