Trurl

What do all my equations variables equal? x = 5 ; N = 85 N the product of 2 Primes x the least common multiple you get approximately 25 square root of 25 equals 5 Not saying it works but I will try and type it into the patterns I meantioned in my main post. It is more than just a typo.

Light saber. Invented by a Jedi. There is a book by Michio Kaku, Physics of the Impossible, that talks about how sci-fi technologies could become real. But aren't Noble prizes based on benefit of application. Star Wars seem to be always battling. My favorite the R2. It is probably a common answer that R2 should win the prize, but most other Star Wars other technologies are for war.

I think the purpose of this post is to compare believing vs nonbeliving. If you believed then stopped you have experienced both sides. To a believer this is important because the believer questions why you lost faith and what it means to your salvation. I wasn't a believer then believed in a God but it took awhile before I decided to learn about him. So I have experienced both sides. But if someone no longer believes I am interested in their reasoning. Even Mother Teresa questioned her faith.

Ok so no response means that no one sees my pattern. I know my equations are cumbersome, but there is a pattern. In fact I have about 3 distinct equations that show patterns when solved. I know it isn’t a perfect solution where x is found knowing only n. You have to use test values of x to determine where n’s least common multiple is. There is a pattern and I am trying to show that pattern of the least common multiple. I will post again a simplified explanation. My goal was to show the pattern before just plugging a chugging an answer. I will show this pattern, but it is labor intensive to organize all 4 equations. I just wish I was getting more feedback. Over 5 years ago I posted to the Wolfram community. This problem is not designed for their boards. But I did receive some good feedback that knowing n and x the equation checked. However that is not useful. So as I refined my idea where the equation would show a pattern knowing only n. The only problem was it was such a complex nth degree polynomial, I could not solve it. I could only use it in a computer program to compare test values of x. I mean, I led me to work what was known about solving polynomials and if there was anyway to solve it graphically. But I still feel my equations though rugged, showed important patterns. My equations had a range of error, but I now know this was due to the limitations of the calculator. But will my average coding skills I do not know how to program for over 100 digit numbers. But in my future attempts to show my work, I will show my patterns and where you can learn more about them. But until then don’t just look at this equation of finding the least common multiple. Look at the equations with the factors known and see those factors as forming a pattern as they are multiplied together to form n. A pattern in Prime numbers sounds impossible. But that is not what my equation does. It takes n and finds it factors according to an equation that will solve for the least common multiple. I remember a previous comment that solving a Prime pattern was not serious. I argue that it may be impossible, put finding an equation describing the least common multiple is a serious endeavor.

http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sqrt[((((6911^2*7823^4%2B2*7823^2%2B6911^5)%2B6911^8)%2F7823^4*(7823%2F6911^2)))] Compare to http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sqrt[((((6911^2*(6911*7823)^4%2B2*(6911*7823)^2%2B6911^5)%2B6911^8)%2F(6911*7823)^4*(6911*7823)^2%2F6911^2)))] Compare these 2 Wolfram Alpha links. There is a pattern here. Easy knowing both x and n. But the pattern is there. There is more to the patterns I am working on. I am compiling a Kindle book. If you believe there is a pattern post here or check my profile.

Ok, so 40,000 people have seen this post. Does no one agree the equations show a pattern in factoring. I’m serious in my approach to this problem. I am not trying to deceive anyone. As my instructor in college would say this is a 5 second problem. Plug in N and x can only be a Prime factor. I know it isn’t difficult solving knowing both x and N. But these equations show where x must be knowing only N. Many have seen it but does anyone believe me? You see no one believes me that an amateur found a pattern to Prime numbers. And they would be correct. These equations and patterns are based on patterns in factoring. So if N was 10 an x of 2 would prove the equations true. So has anyone actually tried what I proposed? Or, did it just sound impossible and not worth the effort? I ask because I must not be explaining it correctly. Does anyone have any questions? This was the first time I wrote so much about a set of math problems. I have learned it can get out of control; not knowing how to describe something that isn’t completely finished. So let me know good or bad what you think. Like in show business no comments is worse than criticism. My question is, “Does no one see it?” A pattern in Primes may be impossible, but a pattern in factoring is possible. And is important to reverse public key cryptography.

Thanks guys. There is some good advice here. I do like the permutation of a and b as a stating point. Usually it given the abc then find ab ac and so on. I have a reoccurring problem on my trucks speedometer. I am at 71000. But I was thinking when do numbers repeat. For example 71071 or 71171. This is considering how large the odometer is that the numbers occur linearly. So my hunch on the abc Sensei mentioned is a modulus problem and I would treat it as if it were an odometer. I know I problem misworded this idea but it is just an intuitive idea I have not done any work but it would be very applicable to computer computation. The reason for me to ask this question is that I was stuck on a problem. The problem led to other problems but essential part of the larger problem I was stuck on. But I continued to work on it because it was "my problem". I like the idea of the abc problem because if each letter is given it's own spot across the odometer if it spins linearly all letters will result. But putting that into an equation is a different story.

The book does not contain religion. I post here to see if anyone has or wants to read the book. Something of the sort "I'm a scientist but scientific evidence points to a creator as much as it doesn't." "God doesn't play dice" I want to see if anyone is familiar with the book and follow scientific evidence that supports a creator may exist. I haven't read the book, but it might be an intersting read.

Well I thought this would be:What is the best way for an amateur to find math problems? Math and drawing take less resources compared to other sciences. But the amateur still wants meaningful problems. Obviously ideas can come from anywhere, but it would be nice to be working on the most current needs. For example BitCoin is valuable, then it is not. Twitter following can tell you what is popular, but reaseach takes time and still how do I know the problem is worth the effort? Journals list abstracts but the amateur doesn't really have access to them. I know ideas are found everywhere. I am just looking to grow as an amateur. Am I looking in the right areas?

I checked at reviews for this book. A science explanation for intelligent design. No religion. But I thought it would be a good read for the scientist looking at science for answers. Darwin's books are now public license. I don't care to study them but I have read excerpts that I consider bad science. I think that is what the author of the book while argue that the is much more that needs to be explained. The reviews also mention how DNA and evolution relate.

What are your methods to find that great math problem to invest your time to work on? Or any other project. I have my own methods but I want to hear others before I share my own.

I never studied optics in physics, but can you guys tell me if a lense would go linear? It sounds like chr2019 is working on a video game. I have a vr headset and distances don't focus in distance to reading writing on the viewpoint. This is why a standard viewpoint using trig and an angle would work for a rifle simulator and eye chart but what do you do if you want to emulate a person's viewpoint? i realize you could always have a linear viewpoint calculated for different perspectives. But I am not skilled enough as a programmer to do this. It seems too memory and computational anyway. There are already Unity and other tools libraries. Isn't this a major problem in optics. My eye doctor said if I could invent glasses that focus near and far I'd be a millionaire.

We can argue back and forth in all good fun. Your believe in some sort of Creator. I guess you just had an experience, maybe science that made you think otherwise. There are Christian scientist. And a lot of scientist believe in creation designed. Depeding on your beliefs, they determine how you interpret the Bible. You can apply pure science, but that won't always lead to answers. But to me the answers are found by study and research. Reading the Words in red, I see things that apply to family and relationships with other people. I my opinion if I follow the given examples I will live a more meaningful life. I say a guy interviewed on YouTube that had nothing to do with religion. He had a 160 iq and was living modestly on a farm. The reporters ask him why he wasn't a millionaire and he replied that he lived the way that made him happy. I don't think we were born evil. But obviously we are imperfect. This thread is just my opinion. But I don't see the Bible's purpose to convert everyone to Christianity. The goal is to present the Word and let the reader decide what it means to them. Obviosly not everything in the Bible makes sense to me. But neither does every theory in science. But just because I do not understand something make it invalid.

The original post does refer to Pastor Doug's description of slave. This is simply meaning only the Jewish people should participate. Even the slave can eat. Simple enough. This is not a new question. Anyone who reads the Bible will probably ask this. IMHO anything can be ask but there is no easy way to settle the debate. We don't have a way to know why things are the way they are other than history, the Bible, and science. To me it would be like blaming the leader of a country for everything that is wrong in the country. It would also mean we have no choice in our actions which is a whole other debate. But I think what is looked over how important the present is. It isn't like this stuff is just in the past, we are living it.

No Pastor Doug is correct. He is referring to Hebrew slaves. It is my explanation that is wrong. Christains don't deny bad things happen in the Bible. We are not blindly following the Bible. Nor with good Pastors we are not being lied to. The Old Testament is difficult to understand. The Old Testiment was Hebrew law. But the question is unanswerable. And no Christian can answer it. But one unanswered question does discredit the Bible. In my own opinion, the question is not why God allows slavery, but why does Man allow slavery. Why is God or how is God responsible?

As was explained to me by Pastor Doug, slavery in the Bible is not like slavery that led to civil rights in the U.S. A person could become a slave to pay a debt or support themselves financially. They wouldn't be treated like the slaves of the United State's South. But slavery relates to service. It is important to serve. That would be the meaning in the New Testament. But I admit is does sound confusing in certain verses. I cannot interpret them for you. There would be a reason for the wording, but you would have study it verse by verse. But don't think because it says slavery it means the way we know it. The Bible is difficult to understand without a knowledgeable person to help put it into context. Often you have to know the history.

Solve for x. I don't have the math background to solve for x. But if you put in N and p, you will see this simplified equation. I plugged it into Wolfram Alpha, but solving for x is still a challenge. x^2 + (2 x^5)/N^2 alternate form (x^2 * (N^2 + 2 * x^3) / N^2 Plug in the known value N. Still impossible to solve. But if you plug in both x and N it proves true. Do you believe me now?

Don’t let me distract you on your original idea. I know how important it is to pursue your vision. I like how your matrices did not have to rely on the previous matrices. I don’t understand the patterns you are using or what your method is. Maybe you could explain in a book format. What interests me now is if you can take my equation and find a pattern between Prime numbers. N^2 = ((((p^2 * N^4 + 2 * N^2 * p^5) + p^8 / N^4) – ((1 – p^2 / (2 * N)))) * ((N^2 / p^2))) I have other less complex equations that will prove p is Prime knowing q and N. The equation is cumbersome, but it will show if 2 numbers are Prime knowing all values. If you are interested in perhaps using any of these equations, I will email you a full set of equations. I don’t mean to distract you from your work, I am just informing you of a pattern you might not otherwise test. My email address is snyder97_bob@hotmail.com Email me if you are interested in working together. And if you don’t want to team up, I will still send you a copy of my work, because the matrices are your work and I know how it is hard to change one’s ideas when you have a lot of effort put into a project. If you take these equations and prove something it only validates my work. And if you win the Fields Metal in math, I want part of the prize. But I encourage you to write and Amazon Kindle book of how to program these matrices once they are perfected. I want to ask you what is your goal in solving Prime numbers? I will share mine after you share yours. But I am just wondering why we work on such an impossible problem. We probably share a like view. Maybe, Maybe not. Also why do you use Excel instead of other more powerful programs? I admit the Excel computation is impressive. But you did mention it runs out of memory then crashes. Anyway, carry on with your idea and don’t let my equations distract you, but if you ever want to test patterns in semi-Primes as they apply to Primality testing, I am willing to share my work.

I enjoy the idea of applying physics to Prime numbers. There should be a wave that shows a pattern in Prime numbers. I once posted the idea of having a logarithmic spiral to show a pattern in Prime numbers. I couldn’t get it to work but relating geometry to patterns does things computation can’t. I think the entire problem of finding a pattern in Prime numbers is starting at zero. That is how we count but finding a series is near impossible. Have you ever thought of starting at a starting point other than zero? It may be impossible not to. But I do like your computation and charts. I also like your idea of relating them to physics. I will close with this idea. What if you stop looking at a pattern in Prime numbers and look for patterns in the way they interact with other numbers. For example, I have been trying to solve semi-Primes. If you could prove a number is a semi-Prime, its factors are Prime numbers. So if you take one known Prime number and multiply it by another number if you could prove the resulting number is a semi-Prime, the unknown number is Prime. So what I am saying is that if your charts tested for Primality based on one known Prime and a test value forming a semi-Prime, you would have a pattern. I know this is no easy task. But looking at Prime numbers for awhile now I don’t think a pattern will be formed without somehow placing Prime numbers into a known function, and then find a pattern in that function. Which I think is what you are trying to do with physics, harmonics, and time. I am just suggesting using semi-Primes to see what you can come up with. Also you’ve got to teach me how to create these matrices. And how you are getting those graphics of the patterns. That is just awesome. But I would like you to find patterns where semi-Primes occur in similar charts. You could start with any Prime number. I think it would be less computational. Just an idea. May work, may not.

Did the previous explanation explain this impossible triangle? I might be able to solve the triangle knowing only N because of the geometric constructions of the angles surrounding N. I don’t know if they still teach using tools like a straight edge and compass. But along with the constructions, I have equations that given p and q in terms of N. I know it isn’t very believable. I’m not claiming this will give a correct solution. But I do think relating my previous posts equations to a geometric figure will help to simplify it. I can see it, but I don’t think others are interested. That is ok. But if I am going to prove my equations useful, I need them to work and be simplified. I like your description of the one-way-function. That’s how I’d define it. I believe that one-way-functions exist for us. My concern is RSA and cryptography. For example, if my triangle worked, we’d have to rethink one-way-functions and RSA cryptography. With the Prime factorization problem, many have tried, so we all believe it is impossible to solve with patterns. I would like to see it solved by similar triangles or vectors. I will get laughed at in the process, but I realize the impossibility of the problem. It may not be humanly possible to solve patterns of semi-Primes, but I thought I came up with a good model. I know my equations are too complex to solve for p, but the equation does show a pattern in semi-Primes. I just need to get others to see the potential of the problem. So if what I am explaining does not make sense or is not explained enough let me know. If something is plain wrong or breaks rules let me know. I am seriously trying as hard as I can to break the Prime factorization problem. No I’m not aware of the ambiguity of the Law of Sines. It has been 20 years since I had a trig class. The rules and Laws are “imbedded” in my mind. By that I mean that I know trig, I just don’t remember how I learnt it. I’m usually good after reviewing a Law or identity. I thought the ambiguity was the tangent of angles above 180; a difference in the direction of the vector.

Ok, so I know nobody likes my hypothesis. But don’t let it discourage you, I think there is a relevant problem here in this triangle. The only thing I am trying to do is relate a one-way-function, where N is the product of two Prime numbers p and q. The triangle shows my thought of coming up with equations. I posted earlier about finding p knowing only N. Imatfaal agreed there was a pattern but deemed it useless. I argue that only the polynomial was too complex to solve for p, it still showed a relationship between N and p, giving the distance a test p was from N. It would be good for a computer loop. Like the equations or not, they show patterns. Patterns never before used. So, if I say I have a pattern and that pattern is ugly, what should such a pattern look like? Simply put, the job of this triangle is to simplify my Prime patterns. Does it do that? I don’t know. But I designed it to do so. In my previous post of “Prime Products One More Time”, look on page 3, posted Nov. 6, 2017. CE is equal to p. N mod p = 0. We don’t know CE; only N. We get a new length N – CE. N – CE has an unknown length FE. FE is the remainder when subtracting q from N-CE. As an added challenge, we do not know the value of FE or q. CE is sliding along AC’. It increases from the perpendicular CD to CE until it is displaced along a length FE from E. AF equals q. Now to the part you are not going to like. Using vector edition: AC = N [Absolute value [ AC – AE – (AC-CE) – CE]] = FE I know this is mostly likely wrong, but it helped me imagine 2 vectors of p and q added together at an unknown angle with a side opposite that angle equal to N. Also, I don’t think CE = CF in all cases. I would solve for FC then solve CE. __________________________________________________________________- So why did I give the new hypothesis? I believe that if you take any triangle that has N as its largest side, the sum of those sides are factors fall on an angle that forms N. Yes, I know the term factors is not correct, because these are decimal values. That is until p and q fall along those segments of the triangle. Yes, I know this isn’t vector addition. I am not adding p and q at different angles to get N. I am only using a triangle with longest length N and stating a similar triangle with lengths p and q exist on that similar triangle. So, these are two different approaches; one vector addition; one similar triangles. This is what my triangle is supposed to solve. Does it do it? The odds are against it. After all, it is a one -way-function. But know that I just didn’t throw this thing together with willy-nilly lines. I know in the development the logic in the formation can not be explained why I chose it. I mean, why did I develop a triangle in this way to solve an impossible function? Well, I know the teacher says: “show your work.” But I cannot show my reasoning; only if something works or doesn’t work.

Hypothesis, Given a triangle with known N, the similar triangle formed at any given triangle with the largest side equal to N, will have a similar triangle with sides equal to p and q. This triangle will have the largest side similar to N. This is probably absolutely wrong, but I base it on the fact that the 2 sides multiplied together equal N. I know I am probably breaking a rule of sine and cosine by addition of trigonometry, but my logic is this: If p and q are the products of N then a triangle the contains N as the largest side, the triangle will have a similar triangle that has sides of the products. After all, a similar triangle is just proportions and since p and q are proportional to the original triangle, multiplication does solve the similar triangle. These similar triangles solve the one-way function of N = p *q. The reason it isn’t easy to visualize is because to find the answer because we did not have the equation to find the relationship between p and q. It is ok if I am wrong. This is after all an impossible one-way-function triangle. But if you read through it, you may understand what I was attempting to do. I will respond to each individual post later. I just wanted to clarify my idea, if possible. Yes, I know there are infinitely many triangles. I’m counting on it so that my sides equal to p and q exist. Again, they always exist. I am just using properties of triangles to simplify an equation that is used to find p and q knowing only N.

I know no one believes in my problem. But I need someone to follow along with the solution (or disprove my ideas). It is something a problem solver must work through themselves. I know FC does not equal CE. And if we can’t solve for FE or find FC. I will not break the rules of geometry by using my side-angle solution. But I propose a math exercise to go through. Instead of believing my solution, prove the exercise wrong. (Probably not that hard to do, but I think it is worth trying.) FE = CD / cos[angle ECD + angle FCE] = CE / cos[FCE] This may be solvable with FE the unknown, but we need to solve for CD and CE to for this to work. Angle FCE is also unknown. N/sin[120] = CE/sin[60] To me I drew this triangle to represent the one-way function. I believe it is solvable. This is why I have reposed it. Proving this triangle solvable means that semi-Primes are no longer able to be used in cryptography. It sounds simple enough, but this is no ordinary triangle. I know when I start talking about Prime number solutions or one-way-functions or solving impossible triangles, it draws a red flag. If it were so easy someone would have solved it already. But if you do not believe we can reach a solution, you are probably correct. It may seem like I do not know math because I am always looking for work-arounds. I know the problem is unsolved and I know the probability of finding a solution equals my probability of solving this triangle. But I believe my approach is different. Solved or unsolved semi-Primes, it is still worth the mathematical exercise.

I could make this long, but I will get to the point. I realize most don’t like my Prime equations. I design these triangles as a graphic representation of my problem. Do you agree that triangle yxs is similar to triangle AFC? Do you believe that triangle AFC has no importance other than the fact that it has PNP (also called N) equals the product of 2 unknow Prime numbers? Do you believe that since N is known and that AFC can be solved for and that triangle yxs angles are the same because of the definition of similar triangles? Most importantly, do you believe that y and x are equal to in proportion to N? (This is the most important step, I am still working on.) If y is the larger Prime factor and x is the smallest, we will use similar triangles y/x = AF/FC. All angles and sides of AFC are known. The proportions of y/x can be written with the following equations: N = 85 y = (N^2/x) + x^2) / N x = x N = y * x, but we only know N y/x = AF/FC AF/FC is known as solved by the triangle and is a real number proportion. So (N^2/x) + x^2) / N * (1/x) = proportion AF/FC Calculate it out I am still working on this. I got x = Sqrt(N/ proportion AF/FC) Again I am still verifying everything is mathematically proper. But I post here to get feedback.

Ok, here is my question simplified: Given: two similar triangles ABC and DEF, Are segment AC divided by segment AB proportionate to segment DF divided by segment DE? If in triangle ABC, all lengths are known, and all angles are known; And in triangle DEF all angles are known; Using the similarity of AC/AB = DF/DE DF and DE are known, but AC and AB are known only by equations, can the equation between AC and AB be simplified by relation to the known DF/DE? That is my question simplified. I did not include example because the problem relies on AC/AB = DF/DE. Other questions I have just realized that the Law of Sines relates to similar triangles. But what I was not taught in school is: d = Sin (a) / A = Sin (b) / B = Sin (c) / C We were not taught that d equals the proportion and is the circumscribed circle of the triangle. But this can be discussed later. I just need to know if what I described above is possible. To me it makes sense and is simple. But I can’t remember ever studying similar triangles this way and I don’t know if a text book would list it under its laws. But I think it isn’t there just like we didn’t learn about “d” because the application is limited. I could be completely wrong. But a side divided by the other in one triangle should equal a side divided by another in a second, similar triangle.