Trurl

These numbers are not Prime. I am saying that the repeating digits within each number repeats. It is easy to see but if you look for a series that determines where the numbers have 2 or more like digits finding the pattern from one to infinity would be difficult. I don’t know if it would be a one way function. 119911 minus 119898 equals 13 These are ordinary numbers. They stand alone; not from the previous work. I use these numbers to show that a linear pattern would also be hard to find. As a pattern in Prime numbers could be impossible with similar approaches. 4 ones 2 nines. What is the next number that will have digits that repeat at least once. Looking at it is easy but an equation that describes it is not. The numbers come from my odometer.

119898 119911 119919 Numbers with 2 or more like digits. Seems easy enough to see but could you put a pattern in order from smallest to greatest? I believe finding a linear pattern in Prime numbers has similar difficulties. Second challenge: How did I derive these 3 numbers. Hint: A truck driver would know instantly but a mathematician might think the numbers are random.

My question is does the electric company turn a profit? In my state utilities companies govern themselves. We have no idea what their expenditures are and how they figure what to charge. It would be hard to compare to other countries. Maybe compare the environmental resources used to the total utilities used a year. I heard about the resources a person uses versus the number of acres of resources per person on the show Explorations. For example someone in the US could pay less for the same amount of resources used by someone in Africa. And at the same time pay less while consuming more energy.

Awesome. Especially recreating the speed of light experiments. To me light is the one thing that would make scientists believe in creation. I don’t know if the Bible explains time and what the light of distant stars says when it reaches Earth, but from my studies of the Bible I haven’t read anywhere that would conflict with all the facts you stated. Of course I know no one agrees with how the universe was created. I just think that scientists want to figure it out themselves.

But is our time dependent on motion? I know that time is different in different locations. But it is still based on the speed of light. Is there any other way to look at the speed of light and say it is moving faster than the other location. I don’t understand it but couldn’t have Einstein solve any other way than clocks at different speeds. I put this in religion to debate time. The universe at rest where no time occurs because it is static. In Genesis God speaks the world into existence. I know that sounds like nonsense. Words don’t equal motion. But words are vibrations. What if God spoke in strings and caused vibrations throughout the universe? But that is just a thought. My main question is why is everything based on the speed of light. Has anyone in this forum tried to replicate the experiments that measure the speed of light? It should be a YouTube challenge. But what if we are missing something important in the spectrum of light? I don’t know what it is. We did not invent them but their definitions are based on our perception. I read a book called “The Planiverse.” The whole book was about two different worlds trying to understand each other. Both worlds had science the other couldn’t understand or relate to in their own world. Agreed. I just wanted to debate time. Like Moz on the tv show White Collar said, “We have time so everything does not happen all at once.”

I had an abstract thought as I sometimes do and was wondering why does the universe have to begin? Is there a distinction between when humanity begins and when everything began? Isn’t our time based on the speed the Earth rotates? And all our time is compared to the speed of light. In SI units a second is the distance light travels. And why must there always be a beginning? I have seen arguments on this forum showing why infinity times infinity still equals infinity. So even if the universe did begin isn’t that infinity. In between 2 times isn’t the distance infinity? My point is that did we invent time to explain our world or is it based on observations. And if it is based on observations can we rely on it to explain and apply to physics? I think it was on this forum that some ask if math was created or discovered. Is time this way? I post this in religion because I believe time determines religious beliefs. It is how we experience the world. And some scientists believe that the World could not be created in 7 days. Time is also how the World works. But what if there was no time?

I just wanted to post a conclusion to this work. I just wanted to note I use PNP Approximate divided by PNP to find where y on the graph equals 1 to find the corresponding value at x which is the smaller factor. I could use PNP Approximate minus PNP to find x where y on graph equals zero Or PNP Approximate equals y where x at y is the smaller factor I believe it works or else I wouldn’t have posted it. But it is more than if it works it has to be efficient to be useful. I believe AI shows it works with smaller numbers. The number crunching problem is if you can find where y equals one on the graph for a 600 digit number. But even if that isn’t efficient new approaches have showed a different approach.

I’d like thank you guys for the above and beyond replies. I have been going through this post and will respond again as I go through it. I really have to stop the SemiPrime project. I don’t know if there are Prime numbers in circuits. Maybe you could use the digital graphs of a voltage wave to act as a key in a crypto scheme. 🤪Just kidding no Primes in the circuit is the rule I must follow. But I did wonder what are the patterns in genetics. But again no genetics in circuits is a rule I must follow. Because everything has a pattern because a pattern is just how we understand it. I don’t know if true randomness exists. I think if you wanted to prove that God cannot exist you’d have to prove randomness exists. I don’t mean that in a religious way, but a scientific way. That is what interests me with Primes. If a pattern exists can’t be proven. But the advantage of this new approach to science is that it has a hands on approach. Circuits and experiments are tangible. And it is easier to see what you accomplished other than a journal or scratch work. I will finish with 1 last Prime post. I would build a server to crunch Primes but that breaks the no Primes in circuits rule.

Restated the question is you are building a home brew lab what do you put in it? It could be any theme: electronics, biology, mathematics, computer programming, cars, 3d printing, chemistry, etc. What goes in the home lab.

I have been reading through this thread and think everyone in this thread should read Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi or Howard Gardner for a civil description of intelligence and creativity.

I hope the people who read this thread see the significance of my last post. That is where the known Prime factors plugged into the equation equals 1. The following photos are feedback from A.I. It puts information more clearly than me.

Well I completely understand. The solution seems too simple to apply. But I think it is simple enough to determine if it works. That is at least when dealing with small values. It takes more effort to prove. The problem is the same with a different approach. Though the equation is simple it takes a while to derive it. The quote you refer to is me stating if it works then it can be used to find larger Prime numbers. There is more to this problem than pnp/x. It looks similar, but most posts have never been seen before. Some are to document my work or to fix a mistake that I have made along the way. I do not claim to know anything about Prime numbers. I am explaining Prime numbers by use of semiPrimes. I was introduced into this math through cryptography. I read Steven Levy's Crypto. I learned of the RSA one-way-function and ask, "is it truly one-way?" That is where pnp comes from. It is simply the N. N=p*q. This one way function is like having 2 grains of sand and throwing it into the beach. But what if the process to find these 2 grains of sand marked them in some way? What if it made them a different color from the rest of the sand? If you knew the general area they were in you could look for the different colors. I don't really believe in one-way-functions. The following is a screen shot I took today. It is a know semiPrime. It doesn't prove anything, but may hint the equation is simple enough to be true.

y = (((((pnp^2 / x) + x^2)) / x) / pnp) The expression collapses to zero. If it cancels out we have found the error. Perhaps if you add the error rather than subtracting it in the y equals 1 equation: y = (((((pnp^2 / x) + x^2)) / x) / pnp) Add y + error Or 1 + error

Error = (1 - (1 -(pnpapprox / pnp))) Good catch. I think this fixes it. This is tricky. Do you see what I am attempting to do to find where x on graph equals where y = 1? Adding the error to 1 and finding where y equals the 1+the error. But this error may or may not help in picking the correct x. More testing is required. I not sure if finding this error narrows the choice but I think it is time for some number crunching either way.

pnpapprox = (((((pnp^2 / x) + x^2)) / x) ) pnp = test semiPrime pnp/pnp = 1 pnpapprox / pnp is our original equation Error = pnpapprox / pnp - (1 - (1 - pnpapprox / pnp)) This looks complex but it isn’t. This is to demonstrate how I would handle the error.