Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Trurl last won the day on July 18 2022

Trurl had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL


  • Quark

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    applied mathematics

Recent Profile Visitors

14850 profile views

Trurl's Achievements


Atom (5/13)



  1. Ok, but with evolution can you be creative? Does life matter when we are not in control of it? I ask this because I watched a lecture on the Matrix Trilogy. The whole series was about free will and if it exists. You have new beings who are machines and a new world the Matrix. Well depending on our definition we know creativity exists. Man defined it. But with evolution would we be in control or just completely a process? One psychologist defines creativity as a process. He interviewed creative types and they repeat they were not in control of the experience. And the same psychologist said that spiritual experiences had similarities to creative experiences. So is evolution random? Man has spent his life looking for patterns and explanations. He even questions if there is true randomness. Is man built for the world or was the world built for man?
  2. The original theme of this thread was to see if we can create life as humans. You know, recursion. We are in agreement we definitely modify it. But it almost sounds that most of you feel a designer would be a bad thing. I view it as a creator whose creations are meant to create and enjoy those creations. I don’t think it would take away from what we call science. Is there any definition of life that would define life as a conscious being? If the mind of a man is ever duplicated with computers, we couldn’t rely on the biological definition. Who knows what is going on when a computer processor is in recursion. Also how do you explain the water cycle or trees turning co2 into oxygen? In high school I did a college level paper on creativity. In the research the was sources that believed that humans couldn’t create. They argued that everything of our human knowledge could be done by a computer if given the proper input. Does anyone believe that rubbish? So if you don’t believe humans can create life, do you still believe we can be creative?
  3. What causes these to work together? I am not saying evolution doesn’t occur. But creation scientists argue the fact we don’t see evolution occurring in that way in the present. I am concerned with the final result. Are you saying the interaction between a living being and its environment lead to a new changed living being? And without the need of a creator.
  4. That is a biological definition. But with ai, robots and computers wouldn’t different definitions of living apply.
  5. Well in evolution if a cell is designing an evolved self isn’t there instructions or nucleus that is designing this evolution? Something has to take place to “design” something new. What else would cause such a unique and specific change? Also why are plants considered living? Do they have a conscious that moves their bodies to light? Or is the plant just made out of reactions to its environment?
  6. Man had advanced over the years. So a group of scientists agreed to challenge God to show that they can build a man out of dirt. The scientist giggled at the idea because it was so easy. Then as they started, God called out, “Hey, that is my dirt.”
  7. I was just thinking tonight that We are made in God’s image according to the Bible. And He spoke the World into existence. He spoke. I does not say he thought the World into existence. So as we have a mind that thinks and decides what to say, it seems he functions the same way. My question is if we ever create a conscious intelligence (like A.I. or computer learning) would you reevaluate your ideas on creationism?
  8. Ok, so the work is over. But I have one question which is Did anyone find it useful? I know 2564855351 is easy to factor with computers. I take the values from 1 to zero from the right to left and test. A 10^9 is reduced to 10^4. I know it doesn’t seem useful. But I haven’t worked with hundreds of digits. The precision of the numbers close to zero (a pnp==pnp) is untested. My programming skills are terrible. But I see what the theme is: “If it does factor semiPrimes it is more than just theory. You should be able to produce the factors.” But it leads me back to the question is it useful? When I thought it up I thought it was gold dust. I cannot factor very well with it. But I am a terrible programmer. I have read about the discovery of determining how many Prime numbers there are under a given number. The thought is that it would lead to a pattern. It never did. However, it led to patterns of series that produced large Prime numbers. I’m not saying the Pappy Craylar Conjecture finds a pattern in Prime numbers, but it is a simple method of predicting factors, approximated (where the graph is between zero and one. Well, it is on to other projects for me. I posted so much because I believed in my hypothesis. I leave you with my corrected equations screenshot. But if anyone does find a use for the PCC: Post it here!
  9. (x*Sqrt[2564855351^3/(2564855351*x^2+x)] + x^4/(2564855351^2+x)) - 2564855351), (x from 10000 to 52000) _________________________________________________________________ plot( 2564855351-( Sqrt[(((((x^2 * 2564855351^4 +2* 2564855351*x^5) +x^8)/ 2564855351^4) – (1-x^2/ (2* 2564855351))) * ( 2564855351^2/x^2))] ),(from x= 10000 to 50000)) Paste these in Wolfram's Alpha computation bar. If it times out you need Pro. This was my final attempt. That is why I stopped posting. The graph of these equations are in different windows. Alpha would not give me enough space to combine them. But x should be the factor where (if) they intersect between 1000 and 50000. I am working on a better presentation and file format. Alpha correct the parenthesis, so I didn't mess with it. I didn't want to break it.
  10. This is what the links that don't work look like. Remember the musing about the NSA cryptographer and the graphic artist?😜
  11. Yes, most attempts at finding patterns in Primes fail. I gave it a solid effort. The one thing that bothers me is that I only needed to know where y on the graph equals N. If you plug in N and plug in the already known x it equals N. That is why I never gave up. I thought it would be easy to analyze the graph. I conclude here. This is why I keep going. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=((41227*Sqrt[2564855351^3%2F(2564855351*41227^2%2B41227)]+%2B+41227^4%2F(2564855351^2%2B41227)) 41227 is the only x that will produce N. As seen. I just wish there was a way to solve the equation for x for real numbers.
  12. You are right I cannot factor a large Prime. But the fault is mine and not the Pappy Craylar Conjecture. I don’t know of any math software that will let me find x on the graph while y equals N. I believe the PCC is finding the factors, but for me it is impossible to find an answer on the scale of the graph. Do you know of any graphing programs. I could also fix the loop, but I don’t know the advantage of just looping the equation versus looping division. You could guess at the position of x because the PCC equation would tell you if you were higher or lower than the correct value. I found the error. So an N of 85 will occur where x equals 5, exactly with no error. But when you try and solve for x in the equation the square roots stop the equation from being solved. But until I can say f[x} = N, where y = N. I cannot solve the graph without typing in the correct scale. And the scale is hard to find with several hundred digits N. So RSA remains safe for now. I have put a lot of work into this problem. Good thing this isn’t my thesis or I’d fail. But I leave you with one more graph. That is 85 = 5*17: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot((x*Sqrt[85^3%2F(85*x^2%2Bx))]+%2B+x^4%2F(85^2%2Bx))%2C+((85^2%2Fx%2Bx^2)%2F85*x-(x^3%2F85))+from+0+to+20 One more. I don't think it is the correct factors, but it was a true test of the PCC method. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=((x*Sqrt[2564855351^3%2F(256485531*x^2%2Bx)]+%2B+x^4%2F(2564855351^2%2Bx))%3D%3D+((2564855351^2%2Fx%2Bx^2)%2F2564855351*x%2B(x^3%2F2564855351))
  13. I will be taking a break after a weekend crunching numbers. I don’t know if it is the Pappy Craylar Conjecture’s fault. I thought finding lines that intersect would be easier. Go figure. I graphed xthefactor = x, in the first graph. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=plot\(40)Cbrt[Divide[\(40)Power[x%2C3]+Power[2564855351%2C2]\(41)%2C\(40)+Power[2564855351%2C2]%2Bx\(41)]%2BDivide[Power[x%2C4]%2CPower[2564855351%2C2]+%2Bx]]\(44)+Sqrt[\(40)Divide[\(40)Power[x%2C2]*+Power[2564855351%2C2]\(41)%2C2564855351%2Bx]\(41)+]+%2B+\(40)Divide[Power[x%2C2]%2CPower[2564855351%2C2]%2Bx]+\(41)+from+0+to+50000\(41) The second graph is N=N. Where x should be the factor at N for both plots. Here the PCC looks promising. I just don’t know of a way for the computer to give me the intercepts and the scale of the graph so I can read it. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot((x*Sqrt[2564855351^3%2F(256485531*x^2%2Bx))]+%2B+x^4%2F(2564855351^2%2Bx))%2C+((2564855351^2%2Fx%2Bx^2)%2F2564855351*x-(x^3%2F2564855351))+from+0+to+50000
  14. Yes, it does not look good for the Pappy Craylar Conjecture. But let's hope it has potential like the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers has offensive weapons, but can't produce offense. The PCC cannot be solved by solving for x only knowing N. But if you place it into a plot it may prove useful. I am still working on the challenge. I want a usable process that will find x fast and accurately. This is what I have. But I can't get the loop to work yet. It is a Hail Mary for the PCC. clear [i, pnp] pnp= 2564855351 i=3; while[ ((((pnp^2/i + i^2) / pnp * i) – (i^3/pnp)) << pnp, Print; i=i+2]
  • 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.