Trurl

You’re right that my programming skills are lacking. But as with large Primes programming, large numbers in C++ are difficult. In the Simple Yet Interesting, I graphed 2564855351 and it resulted in zero. That is not the same as the Riemann zeroes, but I want an educated guess to plug and chug. One mathematician said trillions of zeroes have been found at 1/2. But again I don’t know how to program imaginary numbers. I rely on Wolfram Alpha. But I also want to program something different; something of mine. Should I stick with Mathematica? Also I need something to plug and chug. But I guess finding what to plug and chug is up to me. But what is a good starting point? I treat working with Primes as a learning exercise. They are fifty math problems in one. But the solution may not even be possible. The computer can’t make a proof. But it can disprove if it isn’t at 1/2.

The podcast is too vague. There are just too many people with papers on the Internet that claim to have solved the Riemann Hypothesis. But if you are just searching for zeroes, are there any equations that you could just plug and chug numbers into? I have seen s^-1 summed. But I am searching for other ways to test for zeroes.

Link to 2013 paper: https://annals.math.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/annals-v179-n3-p07-s.pdf

Thanks NTuff. That presentation is excellent. It started off simple and you see how complex it gets. It defines the problem in a short series of slides. And that is what is important: understanding the problem. Wikipedia’s description is hard to understand. I asked Chat gpt if an equation that equals zero at the Prime numbers could relate to the Zeta function. It said no because the Zeta function determines distribution. It said the Mangoldt function would relate better. This may or may not be true, because the presentation showed how the Mangoldt function relates to the Zeta function. So how does the equation I put in “Simple Yet Interesting” compare to Mangoldt? BTW the equation for the odometer is not the one I am comparing to the Zeta function. It is just a model I used to picture patterns as I drive. But I think the problem of finding the distribution of repeating numbers in the odometer relates to the problem of the distribution of Primes. The picture of the podcast is where I heard that an Indian mathematician uploaded his proof of the Riemann hypothesis and no one can tell if he is right.

Awesome now we have a formula. But what is we counted all different digits for 3 combinations and wanted to find how many occur between any given number. Say every 1001 units. I know they will all occur between 000000 and 999999 but what if you say 064064 and 065065 are 1001 distance apart. But 6400640 is significantly larger. If you chose a range are there more combinations occurring linearly from say 000000 to 030000 than 050000 to 080000? The combinations all occur over the range of real numbers, but do they occur evenly over an equal distance from zero? In other words, “is this pattern evenly distributed over the linear odometer? That is as they occur “counting.” (The odometer is just counting.) I have been working with this for quite some time. When my odometer turned 096096, I thought it was a reason to share and see if this meant something. 019019 091091 901901 092092 029029 209209

Consider these problems: An odometer turns so that the first numbers equal the last. For example, 096096 has 3 numbers that equal. But can you tell for which numbers this works for. For instance, if you had 123123 it would have 3 equal numbers, but it would take longer to get that size number. If 012012 occurred how close would it be to 021021. Would smaller numbers be closer of further away from similar patterns of the same series of numbers. Obviously, you could argue that because we are going through all real numbers the occurrence of numbers and patterns are equal. The pattern is simple. But going linearly (counting) makes this observation difficult to see. And that is how I feel with patterns in Prime numbers. Most attempts at finding a pattern are linearly starting at 1 and counting. But I hypothesis that is why no pattern is found. Problem 2: We all leant that a modulus can be described by a clock. But what if you had 2 or more clocks that were rotating at different times at different rates of speed of rotation. Would they every have the exact time? That is rotating to infinity. And if they never do have the same time, could you prove it mathematically? These are just some questions I had. I found a book on the Riemann Hypothesis that is geared to the undergraduate. But it is better is it easy to read so that I can better understand it. I heard in a podcast that an Indian mathematician claimed to have proved Riemann’s work. He posted it on the Internet. It has been years, and no one can make any sense of it. That is why it is best to keep it simple. You could spend years studying the Riemann Hypothesis and never know what Riemann knew. There is also a rumor that after Riemann passed away his maid took most of his papers on his desk and burnt them. She never explained why she did that. So, a pattern of Primes could have been solved. Instead, we are looking at what was published. I’m just looking for simple ways to understand it.

Sounds dangerous to use race and ethnic labels. But what if in studying the genome there are more “classifications?” These classifications may be rooted in science but would also be misused.

3rd Challenge: Graphical Representation: I have claimed that a logarithmic spiral could be drawn to show a pattern in Prime numbers. It is easy to claim but hard to draw. Here I challenge you to draw a logarithmic spiral that explains the last post’s graph of PNP and where it equals zero. But what is the previous post finding a semiprime where the graph equals zero, there was a modified sine wave that explained the graph? So, you have numbers at PNP at zero with x and y (the Prime factors), with the sine curve osculating above and below zero. And the sine curve at the same time is experiencing resonance. Growing larger in magnitude as the value of PNP increases. Could not a logarithmic spiral explain this? And couldn’t a differential equation explain this resonance like a differential equation explains resonance on a spring? And if you put the graph in 3D, does it make a helix? And could it be useful to define changes in helix such as those that describe DNA. Obviously, that is wishful thinking but new ideas bread new ideas.

Well I’m glad you know the answer because I don’t. So much of today’s programming is using existing libraries. That is why I like reading cryptography protocols because the main idea is simple. I really am not a good programmer. That is why GPT is a game changer. I can’t learn all the interfaces. And things I have learned are outdated. Remember Flash. I think GPT might fix this problem of languages and formats. But do you think we will end up with lots of code we have no idea how it works?

Sounds like a challenge to me. Someone in the forum probably has an answer. Not my area of expertise, but what if we had a couple members ask ChatGPT give us starting point?

I posted a challenge in Simple Yet Interesting. I am serious. I want to see if someone here is a better programmer than me. It is a programming challenge as much as a math challenge. I think it is a good first challenge. Challenges are challenging to write. I don’t know if most of you remember that before the Internet, magazines were the way to distribute information. For example, the RSA problem appeared in 1979 Scientific American. Also, there was a feature called the Amateur Scientist for amateur experiments. Good magazines are hard to find today. But it leaves something that could be formatted to fit the web. If you know of any good programming challenges or ideas, reply to this post.

Where x * y = pop When y = Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*x^2+x)] So that, x* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*x^2+x)] = pnp pnp – pnp = 0 Let x equal any Prime number. 5 for instance. Graph x = 5 at x on the graph at that instance = pop So where 5* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*5^2+5)] – pnp = 0, then pnp is a semiPrime and we can plug it into the equation and find y (the larger Prime number). And if we continue to graph over all real numbers we will find every Prime number in existence. This is my programming challenge to you. Remember the math does not have to work to complete the challenge. The challenge is to see how fast you can prove it wrong or correct.

You would delete a contest? Like a programming challenge or capture the flag? Also, posting ideas is not advertising. Such comments are not helpful in ensuring people take you seriously. Not as in selling a product but sharing ideas: for input, feedback, and quest for knowledge.

I’m an technician class amateur radio operator. But advertising is forbidden on amateur radio. Another rule is that communications can not be encrypted in signal or speech. The exception to advertising is that you can offer radio equipment for sale periodically. I tell you this because I really wanted to use crypto over the airwaves. I have used crypto before, legally on private bands. But back to advertising. We aren’t allowed to advertise on SFN. Can someone point me to the rule book? I don’t mean selling goods or spam ads. But what if you were putting together a team of creatives? Or trying to find fellow hams? Does anyone know if building a team over amateur airwaves is advertising? And I don’t think it is allowed on SFN. If you post and want further communication from SFN members is that advertising even though it was an open communication? (They replied to your post without being spammed.) And what if we announced a contest online? Amateur radio has many contests. On the Simple Yet Interesting we had a challenge. I didn’t win but I don’t consider it a complete defeat. Contests aren’t always about money. But what if users could start small contests. And the contestant wins original artwork or secret knowledge? These are just some ideas I wanted to advertise. (Because every time you post you are essentially advertising your ideas.)

There is a way to eliminate the possibilities of 4590 in 2564855351. There is enough variation between values to find which value is the answer. And also to find y.

I don’t mean gpt is creative. I mean it takes from the special aspects of human work. That sounds like something Trump said in high school. And papers are generally not fun. And they are assigned too often.

Back to the creativity aspect. I listened to a podcast where a man said what worried him about Chat gpt was that it does what we do as humans. So why would a high school student want to write a research paper and spend hours finding sources when gpt can do it in 5 seconds. So even if you do not believe computers can become conscious, it appears they can take the fun out of the things people do.

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?

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?

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.

That is a biological definition. But with ai, robots and computers wouldn’t different definitions of living apply.

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?

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.”

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?

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!