Trurl

No I mean multiplication. If the number in question is Prime then multiplying it by a known Prime would create a semi prime. If the number in question isn’t Prime a semi prime wouldn’t be produced. I’m saying the non semi prime should be easier to factor then testing if the original number was Prime. A semi prime may be more difficult to factor, but if you multiply the test prime by a number that isn’t Prime the factorization should be trival. (maybe) So if 12 was tested to be Prime, we multiply it by 5 a known Prime number. 60 Sixty on the sieve is not Prime. 2*2*3*5 Not a semi prime thus not prime. Obviously we need bigger numbers. But I think it may be useful if applied to the sieve. If not no big deal just another abstract thought.

But what if the ability to do anything is contradicted by what anything is defined by? But if the gods don’t want to or can’t prove to us they exist where does that put us. Explain to me where that puts science and humanity. I know how you guys feel about Elon Musk but he is living the dream. Have many kids to stop population decline, going to Mars… If there is no personal God, Elon should be our model. And science only makes sense to us. I mean it is something we do but does it make sense outside of humanity? And when humanity is gone what becomes of science?

Well my figuring is to take 5 or any other and multiply it by the number in question of being prime. So if you were determining if 11 was Prime you’d multiply it by a known Prime say 5. You get 55 which is not Prime but a semi prime. But is it as difficult as determining Prime to prove semi prime? With lager numbers it may work easily for some numbers but harder to prove it semi prime? But any factor that isn’t Prime would break down into smaller Prime factors. I just brought this up because I agree with you the 6x+-1 is to heavily computational without a Prime number test. You said that all Primes can be expressed by 6x+-1 but computing in series some pairs are false positives. Without a test for Primes doesn’t this throw a monkey wrench into the series? My question is: is it easier to prove a number is semi prime than prime? Just for the fact it is no longer prime? And non prime factors are easier to factor.

But I think our view of omnipotent is limited. We know science and I often think about physics in church. But I don’t think our science is enough to decried omnipotence. Like when we get to heaven is there a lot of singing? But math and science can be just as much used as a form of worship. Increasing the human understanding, curing a disease (as mentioned) or enjoying what there is to learn. If the gods cannot remind us they are there what are we doing? I don’t mean just where we came from but what are these strange things like science are we doing? If someone finds a pattern in Primes, Guass is not going to say I was so close. Einstein didn’t live long enough to complete unification. Science is fun but I would argue that science is augmented by a personal God not rendered useless.

Here I am questioning the value of evidence. And even when science is right it makes no difference if we do nothing about it. I compared it to the gods who can present no evidence to man to prove they exist. And when you use science what are the guidelines for applying it? I am not blaming science. To me that is the same as blaming religion. People are the reason it is wrong. I don’t know what science covers that; maybe psychology? But I don’t think man has the ability to ever solve these problems. That is were a personal God comes in.

I was looking at the 6x-+1 thread and I agree with Studiot that he still needs a test for Primes to simplify the computation. I was unaware of the 6x+-1 and I don’t want to hijack his thread. But to test for Primility could you multiply the number in question by any known Prime number and see if the product is only divisible by those numbers? I mean you already know the Prime factor you used. If in doubt test with another known Prime. If 6x+1 describes all Prime numbers, it is not a sieve you need but a test for Prime numbers to complete the computation problem. I know it sounds too simplistic. But has anyone heard of it before? If I am wrong just ignore. I just didn’t want to distract from the other thread.

It’s the objective facts that have no effect on the decision. I saw a video on “verbal judo.” It is said that in a tense situation logical arguments do not win. I don’t think logic works in politics either. Again I used vaccines as an example. I am not a doctor. I’m just saying science is just facts to you use it. Unless you are inventing new technology or creating new guidelines than there is no value to evidence. Just as the gods determining what sign to show you. We know that some say climate change is natural. I believe it is very real. But what if I have irrefutable evidence? Do. I just say: I told you so as the planet explodes? Science is good. But I don’t think humans are Vulcan. They don’t always think logically. And not every problem is logical. If we had “pure logical” decisions do you think the world would be better? And what is the science to the application to science? Evidence is just evidence till applied.

That just means it is a blessing to find a wife. I don’t know I’m not married. But others describe it as one of the best part of their life. I haven’t said vaccines don’t work. I’m saying the scientists don’t always agree. And I’m saying that even if the science is 100% correct if the implication is bad the true science doesn’t matter.

I was referring to the current state of the CDC. You have a guy that doesn’t believe in vaccines in charge of the agency. So if vaccines weren’t bad his actions will make vaccines a bad thing. Which is ironic cause he said they were bad and now they are. So he is telling the truth now.

I’m just saying the physicist and believer are viewing the same world with different results. For people who are married they would see finding his wife guided by God. Religion is like computer security in that you must be able to authenticate and trust. It may be hard to deny the effectiveness of vaccines, but you have to trust those who distribute them. So we thought we could trust them and they break the system and ironically vaccines are bad for you. (That is because they made it bad.) I believe in science but it is limited. In a previous thread in religion I said something similar and someone replied that that wasn’t science’s purpose but philosophy’s. But to relate back to what sign would make you remember the gods? As far as seeing God in every day life, you don’t see it because you are untrained. It is like learning math. You learn math and start seeing patterns everywhere. A camouflage pattern never repeats. This is important because my knowledge of patterns doesn’t apply. My science is useful but my patterns don’t apply everywhere.

In your own comments the function MCheck and PCheck say Prime. But aren’t you missing a bunch of numbers. Do you do this to find a pattern in Primes or create the largest Prime from the pattern? After the sieve eliminates number you say only Primes will remain. What proves the left over numbers are Prime? MCheck and PCheck?

What is the class definition for MCheck? How do you test 6x-1 to be prime then 6x+1 to be Prime? Are you saying 5 6*5-1 =29 6*5+1 =31 But the problem is knowing 29 and 31 are prime. Is that what your program does: identify Primes by sieving 29 and 31? I’m just trying to see if I can understand this correctly.

Well I wasn’t in total disagreement. But you have to take into account that some see God in every day life. They are experiencing God in reality in every day life. But I argue the same for science. Yes it evolves as society changes. I respect you don’t believe. I wasn’t always a believer. I was just trying to show the converse. If you are not familiar with religions, religions just look like a reason to wage war or starve people. But aside from miracles and signs, the tangible part of religion that should be observable and tangible is how people live their lives. Martial arts is very religious and spiritual. But has tangible concepts like fighting battles. But fighting is only one part. Improving one’s self mentally and physically is the true goal. So just because you believe religion comes from projections of the mind how can you be absolutely sure? I like science but today there are conflicting view such as is there climate change or not? Are vaccines good or bad? Sounds like science is being as misused as religion.

No. I am saying I don’t know why we suffer. Even Jesus suffered when he was crucified. I don’t think there is any human explanation for this. But isn’t everything we experience and learn based on an intellectual construct influenced by a collective human experiences? History is written but how often is history inaccurate? Also we don’t live very long. Einstein’s equations live on but his mind didn’t. I mean he published works but how his mind worked and brilliant ideas he had he didn’t publish is lost. I guess we could forget the gods but that is true of any of our information. But to me it sounds that you are saying religion is imagined and science is real. I’m not really trying to change your mind I am just debating you. I’m not going to debate which one is correct. But even if religion was “imaginary” it still would be as real as science because religion is influencing people and they use it in their decision making.

God of the Old Testament blows up cities and floods the world. In the New Testament Jesus shows up and shows how to live. At everyone’s post on free will and God not intervening. I wonder this too. I will leave you with a simple thought trying to convey the logic I approach it with. In the original Super Mario brothers you get 3 lives for eight levels. But soon you discover if you jump on the turtle multiple times you get 99 lives. Soon you find a warp zone and you go to the last level and beat the game in ten minutes. The game is never the same. In religion they would say blessings along with trials. But the fact that you could die make you life that much meaningful? I think it makes it more important. Suffering is different. I don’t think anyone can explain it. If you figure it out let me know.

No, I am saying that God deserves praise. If he demanded it we would have any choice. How would it be praise if we had no other choice? If you believe or disbelieve or God exists or doesn’t exist you can see why a personal God is needed. Wouldn’t we be doomed without a personal God? The original question was how the gods remind the people they exist. But this occurs all the time in each generation. People choose to believe or not.

That is what I am asking: what evidence would convince you? What I mean by praise is earned is that God would give us reason to praise. I don’t think it is demanded. (Yes I know what the Old Testament says.) But obviously in today’s society it doesn’t seem praise is demanded. Praise is not true praise when demanded. But I agree that if you read the Bible verses it may say something that seems or even may say “demands praise.” I would have to research. But there are many parts of the Bible that need interpretation. I don’t think a few verses will explain God. I once opened the Bible and it said: “Ye of uncircumcised lips.” Needless to say I was confused. But it is only a piece of a larger part. But is there anything that would make you believe? Earlier I suggested that God should change the physical and chemical properties of the world. Newton mechanics would no longer apply. Lisa in this house we believe in the laws of thermodynamics (Homer Simpson). I agree it seems petty for someone all knowing to demand praise. I don’t think demanding praise is who God is. I respect your disbelief. Do you believe that a god couldn’t create the universe or do you not agree with the “definitions” of God?

I have a follow up question. Are such systems that the U.S. is going to spend a trillion dollars on AI? It is all the technology plus power plants have to be built to power it all. 10 billion to feed kids or 500 million for creative property destroying machines? I would rather pour money into Artemis or Mars than a computer which I feel is built for destruction. Agree or Disagree The whole point of AI is to develop a superior intellect.

I think the thread question could read what would make you believe in a God. So are you saying under no evidence would you believe or worship. The people I’m friends with see God when finding their wife or a love one in the hospital; not a horseman on a white horse. Belief doesn’t make it true or untrue. But it does make a difference in how you live your life. Michio Kaku was raised as a Catholic. He is right when he said both sides are wrong: you can’t prove anything. You don’t believe in praise. Why would you? You don’t believe in God. But praise is because you want to praise. Praise is earned. So to answer the original question for the gods to make humans remember them they would cause joigus to praise them.

If God wanted to be remembered he could change all the scientific properties. He would get the attention of scientists everywhere. Could God have built the World any other way? He just did.

Just like a sports game it has to play out instead of just paper. But instead of fake news the computer program would find the real reasons of the conflict. It would answer the question of who is to blame for the war in Gaza. Depending on the news source you watch it looks like the people are intentionally starved. But if we knew the true reasons and facts who would we support?

There are statistics predicting how likely you are to buy something. But is there a public system that will predict war? I mean we have sports game stats, but what if we made an open source software to predict wars? Would it cause or prevent wars? But if we predicted a country going to war we would know there motivations. So if we gave each country a rating of their differences such as military power, economic stability, and strategic options could we influence the world to peacefully handle disputes?

So you are suggesting religion is the root of all the problems. Such as wars over religion? But I don’t think forgetting religion would change anything. I believe God could make us forget if he wanted or remind us if he wanted. In the movie, The Matrix, Neo is about to take a pill and asks, “Do I have a choice?” Does his personality always mean he will always choose the same one or is it predetermined? Does he have free will or is everything statistical? I believe in the Bible Jesus’s teachings imply free will. And in my opinion that is good. We shouldn’t force beliefs on someone. We want them to believe for themselves. Not believing is a choice. We just say that they are “lost.” I can see why people would imagine no religion, like the song. Especially if religion has been misrepresented or forced on them. But the question is does the atheist not believe God is possible or does the atheist believe God doesn’t exist because of the human representation of that religion?

We have all heard of the Batman Equation. Click Here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaIsCJw0QG8&pp=ygUaYmF0bWFuIGVxdWF0aW9uIHJldmlzaXRlZCA= The Batman equations add parametric equations together. As the video states any design of more complexity takes a computer. But what if we could solve the equation both parametrically and using Cartesian Coordinates? I know that with some equations you are left with things that aren’t very useful. But if the complex was made simple you could determine where a certain value takes place. I mentioned that I wanted to start a make-shift bio lab. I am not a biologist, but I wanted to read more to understand the pattern of DNA. I figured if an irregular, complex pattern could be described by a helix then what else can be described by matching an equation to a pattern? I figured a logarithmic spiral could be used to describe Prime numbers. My figuring is that if you force a pattern to a shape then that shape may reveal patterns of the series. That is where drawing “irregular” shapes and being able to covert and map the shape’s coordinates comes in. What if we were to graph an equation y = 7x + 5 ? But what if a graph y = 7x + 5g, where g is a set of numbers {3, 5, 7, 11, 13…} g doesn’t have to be a variable; it can be a derivative, integral, or equation; it doesn’t even have to be linear. If I control what g is, can I force at pattern? Can I give order to a drawing or sketch without a super computer? And of course you could at more variables other than g or even program variables with variables. I know it sounds too abstract or too complex. I hope I explained it right. One of the images in a graph was Newton. The Newton sketch takes much processing power to draw. But I just thought nesting equations with equations could simplify the entire process. Again I know this idea is abstract. It isn’t a solution. Instead it is a thought process. I don’t know the methods of these maths. I am just sharing how I would go about trying to solve such problems. *note the Newton drawing is in the linked YouTube video.

I though about taking an online degree but it is just too expensive. I read “Maverick Scientist” by Forest Mims and he suggests to “just do science” and spend the tuition money on equipment. The book is very encouraging for amateur scientists. Does anyone here have an electronics or bio-lab at home? We probably all have some kind of man cave.