Trurl

Just because someone meets Epstein and is 1 degree away doesn’t mean they committed a crime. Epstein is zero degrees from himself. He is Epstein. But what if you met him again. So you are now 1/2 degrees from Epstein. Meet him 5 times and you are 1/5 degrees from Epstein. The more you meet him the more you where aware of what’s going on.

You are right. I was generalizing. I am unsure of the whole diagnosis of autism. I’m against labels and certain statistics. That is why I mentioned in an earlier post that I would like to take the same test as was used in the study. I have learned statistics are important and we have to classify such things, but like Kristin Barnett I think they are failing autistic children. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote a few books on Flow and creativity. No stats in either book just descriptions of creative people. I imagine that he did have statics and data when interviewing Nobel Laterite's, scientists, and artists, and average people. The statics could be dangerous. Well I will leave it to you guys to decide if you believe such stats are dangerous. But in just my own opinion a prodigy with autism would be studied for their gift while others would be left behind. But I don’t think the study of this thread is necessarily bad. It makes you view autism objectively. (the stereotypes) I did think “prodigy” when hearing a person does have autism. But I caution labeling people.

I like the way you’re thinking. Have you ever read anything by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi? He talks about creativity as an experience the user is not in control of. Anything could be creative. That includes religious experiences. What if autism had similar traits to Mihaly’s Flow? The user is not in control and their brain is processing whatever is in their environment. The thought is profound; maybe even genius, but as you say it is not communicated or recorded. All we see is weird movements. I believe all minds are capable of genus thought. It is realizing their value and sharing them. And a little off topic but still worth mentioning, I believe our advantage over Ai is this realization of the value of our ideas.

Well I haven’t seen any updates of Jake Barnett. You are right he still has autism but he is highly functional. And he is the stereotypical genius. This video has been out several years. He must be grown by now. But I think for listening to the book his mother trying to communicate with him made the difference. The stereotype of autism is those people are good at math. But he describes it as find math everywhere. He was doing calculations with Cheerios. I am not a psychologist but maybe autism is a hyper concentration on something. So focused that they can’t communicate causing behaviors. It would explain why they excel in some areas and not others.

I agree. Their genus is lost if they can’t utilize it or explain their ideas. The YouTube link I posted is a rare case where the child “snapped out of” autism. His mom found a way to communicate with him. The book is called The Spark by Kristine Barnett.

I wasn’t being flippant in my previous post. Becoming a Luddite is only part of the problem. AI is a weapon. We are debating its effects on education, but that is only one effect on the psychological warfare aspect. I agree with whatever posted that it is addictive. It is like playing Nintendo while you have homework. https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/03/02/1133850/openais-compromise-with-the-pentagon-is-what-anthropic-feared/amp/

I think they should have provided the tests they used on the study. Show me how you evaluated then show me the stats. I have read about a boy that didn’t speak, so his mom tried to communicate with him in his “language.” Not every autistic person is a genius, but they may not appear smart because they can’t communicate. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OR36jrx_L44&pp=ygURa2lkIGdlbml1cyBhdXRpc20%3D

I agree with the majority of the posts here. AI has its uses, but clearly some groups are weaponizing it to destroy society. And the data centers, the only reason I can think of why they need to be built is to control Trump’s middle defense. Maybe it will also work on asteroids. It is like the irony in Mutual Assured Destruction where more bombs make us safer. Let’s have a computer that learns (rips of your intellectual property), can make thousands to your one to insure you work more productivity. Your job is more productive and the more AI can do the more job security you have.

This is just scratch work. It is not in working form. However it is my attempt to write a trap door function. The problem is the enciphering of the message that needs encrypted. Also I do not know if the one way function can be mathematically difficult. The encryption part is not the numbers of the odometer itself. Instead I am trying to use the numbers between the odometer reading. For example how many digits change between 2 readings. My approach here is linear, but there is no reason the odometer readings could not be set to some sort of pattern maybe even out of order. This was confusing to create. It could be wrong. And it may have flaws easy to defeat, but hard to design. So bare with me if it is nonsense. I am completely serious. I just wanted to get feedback, because writing it it makes sense, but the question I need to know is if it is mathematically possible. Now that I have written this idea out. And that is all it is, an idea, I need to research trap door functions. This is how I envision the Enigma Machine or M205 working. However they were not public key. So if you care to comment or list other trap door functions, reply. Take the odometer problem where at least 2 digits repeat and you may be able to create a trap door function. The public key would be the number of digits of the length of the odometer numbers. If you add this key to the message then this new odometer reading is the encrypted message. The private key is a lower number on the odometer. This number is subtracted from the public key and subtracted from the larger encrypted odometer. This gives the unencrypted message. ________________________________ Second Method: Public key is a random odometer reading. The message is encoded using this random odometer reading. The private key is a random odometer reading, which the distance between the public key random odometer reading is known. The private odometer knows the distance between the private and public key. The difference minus the public key reveals the public key.

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.

Again you missed the point. The equations only give a range where the factors are. There is error. To compensate for this error we must test values in a certain range. x on the graph is still an integer. y on the graph is not. Just because y on the graph is decimal does not change the usefulness of the equation. We are number crunching. The graph allows to narrow the range of the potential factors. I don’t think algebra alone is enough to solve the original equation. The graph gives the range where algebra fails. Finding 2 factors N= p*q without factoring. I gave p and q (which I call x and y) “conditions” which set them apart from other potential factors. I know an algebraic equation that had no error and returned the exact factor as an integer would be ideal but the fact remains that there is no alternative that I know of.