Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Trurl

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    applied mathematics

Recent Profile Visitors

8307 profile views
  1. The graph is what’s important. N=1847*2393=4419871=4.4199871*10^6 For p3 as y approaches 0, x will be 1847 or x. For p5 as x approaches 1847, y=4.4199871*10^6 or N Using graphing in polynomial time to get an answer that algebra can’t solve.
  2. (N^2 + x^3)/N = N + (x^3/N) We know from discovery that (x^3/N) = (x^2/y) So, we substitute for y in terms of x The simplest substitution is (y=N/x) (For another equation we could substitute: (y=(N^2/x)+x^2/N) Another equation in terms of y is: (y=(N^2/x + x^2)/N). This can also be substitute into (x^3/N) = (x^2/y), and graphed. L
  3. N=85 x=5 y=17 All my math problems deal with semiPrimes. Is there a pattern? Does it only work with semiPrimes? Can you reduce the fraction to N/oversomedenominator? Has it been observed before? I did not derive it from an equation directly. I am looking for patterns and thought this was one. But I will share if you deem it interesting.
  4. (x^3/N) approximately= (x^2/y) (25/17) approximately= (85/58) Thoughts?
  5. Here are 2 equations that are not algebraically useful, but the graph is gold dust. http://www.constructorscorner.net/Files/GraphicCalcSimple.pdf GraphicCalcSimple.pdf
  6. The title should read from y = 0 to 1. I am looking for a graphing software that will draw graphs in real time. Such features as panning, zooming, and redrawing. I used Mathematica put I get "snapshots" of the graph. I want a graph that redraws and acts like a CAD software. I not sure that it exists, but I am putting it on my wishlist. As you can see by the picture of the graphs, examination of the graph is a challenge. But I hypothesis that x is the last value of the graph where y goes from 0 to 1.
  7. http://www.constructorscorner.net/Files/20201024RSA290.pdf This is the last of my attempts. If you graph the function simply: x (the small prime factor) occurs where the graph goes from zero to 1 (y-value). I think that this eliminates the value of x to a manageable amount of test values. Is this useful? And does a graph of a function faster than trial and error division?
  8. And that reduces to x^4= 0. Can you solve THAT polynomial equation? That is exactly what I am saying: the traditional simplification rules do not solve the equations accurately. I’m saying there must be new rules needing discovered that would solve solutions that were once impossible. Like calculus was discovered as a need to solve physics. Graph Y1graph and Y2graph and see the solution of pnp. We have more options with a plot. We can see where they intersect. I know the equations don’t seem to be of any value, but a graph opens up new approaches.
  9. N = x*y Let N = 85 (N^2 + x^3) / N = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph = (N^2 + x3) / N Y2graph = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph - Y2graph < 1 I can graph them where it intersects. I can also equate the inequality,but I want to solve for x knowing only N. Not plugging in N and x. I was thinking I could use the derivative of each side. Until x^3 = 6x in the first equation I gave you in my first post. This would not work with the ygraph because their graphs are only equal when N = 85.
  10. I want to solve for x. Yes I know that I did not isolate x, but I know the equation has a solution. I cannot get Mathematica to solve it. I was wondering if there is anyway to solve such equations. It is a recurring theme. It is not like a text book problem that is designed to be solved. I keep making complex equations I can’t solve. I don’t know of any way. The rules I have learned aren’t sufficient to solve. The equation is simple enough,, but I thought it would have an easy solution. Does this equation mean anything to you?
  11. How do we solve polynomial equations? I only know how to simplify them. If you could solve this polynomial say N = 85 it would earn a million dollars. Remember who gave it to you. x^3 = N^2 * (x^2/(N^2/x + x)) Solve for x
  12. Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this? I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and
  13. I thought this topic would bring up the limitations of science. I don’t mean a limitation of thought. But does not one scientific solution lead to more problems. Like the atomic bomb it ends war with Japan but adds the potential to destroy the planet. And I don’t think the scientist are at fault because they have a drive to create. But no matter how smart they claim to be they never consider how others will use the invention. They are foolish. I’m not saying this to insult them. They are smart but so stupid in other ways. I saw the interview with Dr. Fauci and he predicts Covid 4 years ago. Do
  14. I asked both questions to ask if science is enough to “fix” the world. As scientist (amateur include) we want a better world. But do we work in vain? For those old enough to remember the start of the internet, remember when people called it ideal because everything was anonymous. No race, no gender, only knowledge. I am interesting to see what everyone posts. What if the best world for humans is chaotic? I mean a world we live in. And maybe it has the potential to be a utopia but we can’t reach it. Is science going to realize the potential of a world that already exists?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.