Trurl

Thoughts? Do you believe the math? I’ve shared it with an engineer and he thought it worked but he said he wasn’t a mathematician. I am not a mathematician either. And I am biased. I envisioned it so it makes sense to me. I was hoping for some guidance from these boards. Is it worth publishing? I am not an elite mathematician so message boards and the net are where I publish. So now break large semiPrimes. And if the math holds true, break the DLP next. Primality test by multiplication and seeing if a semiPrime is formed. There are no prizes for factoring anymore. Patterns in the graphs; a normal distribution. The maths range from algebra to calculus. There are similarities to graphing differential equations. So if you believe in my math please let me know. The message boards were built to solve problems like these.

The graph is what’s important. N=1847*2393=4419871=4.4199871*10^6 For p3 as y approaches 0, x will be 1847 or x. For p5 as x approaches 1847, y=4.4199871*10^6 or N Using graphing in polynomial time to get an answer that algebra can’t solve.

(N^2 + x^3)/N = N + (x^3/N) We know from discovery that (x^3/N) = (x^2/y) So, we substitute for y in terms of x The simplest substitution is (y=N/x) (For another equation we could substitute: (y=(N^2/x)+x^2/N) Another equation in terms of y is: (y=(N^2/x + x^2)/N). This can also be substitute into (x^3/N) = (x^2/y), and graphed. Look at the graphs on the attached pdf. Do you see it now? GraphicCalcSimple.pdf

N=85 x=5 y=17 All my math problems deal with semiPrimes. Is there a pattern? Does it only work with semiPrimes? Can you reduce the fraction to N/oversomedenominator? Has it been observed before? I did not derive it from an equation directly. I am looking for patterns and thought this was one. But I will share if you deem it interesting.

(x^3/N) approximately= (x^2/y) (25/17) approximately= (85/58) Thoughts?

Here are 2 equations that are not algebraically useful, but the graph is gold dust. http://www.constructorscorner.net/Files/GraphicCalcSimple.pdf GraphicCalcSimple.pdf

Why, Mr. Anderson, why???

The title should read from y = 0 to 1. I am looking for a graphing software that will draw graphs in real time. Such features as panning, zooming, and redrawing. I used Mathematica put I get "snapshots" of the graph. I want a graph that redraws and acts like a CAD software. I not sure that it exists, but I am putting it on my wishlist. As you can see by the picture of the graphs, examination of the graph is a challenge. But I hypothesis that x is the last value of the graph where y goes from 0 to 1.

http://www.constructorscorner.net/Files/20201024RSA290.pdf This is the last of my attempts. If you graph the function simply: x (the small prime factor) occurs where the graph goes from zero to 1 (y-value). I think that this eliminates the value of x to a manageable amount of test values. Is this useful? And does a graph of a function faster than trial and error division?

And that reduces to x^4= 0. Can you solve THAT polynomial equation? That is exactly what I am saying: the traditional simplification rules do not solve the equations accurately. I’m saying there must be new rules needing discovered that would solve solutions that were once impossible. Like calculus was discovered as a need to solve physics. Graph Y1graph and Y2graph and see the solution of pnp. We have more options with a plot. We can see where they intersect. I know the equations don’t seem to be of any value, but a graph opens up new approaches. Is a computer plot in polynomial time? I don’t know if it is simpler then recursion, but it seems fast. When I was in college we drew a shear diagram and graph it using graphical calculus to find the moment diagram. Pretty cool finding the area does what is computational hard. I do have graphs and code I’d like to share.

N = x*y Let N = 85 (N^2 + x^3) / N = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph = (N^2 + x3) / N Y2graph = N + (x^2 / (N^2/ x + x) * N Y1graph - Y2graph < 1 I can graph them where it intersects. I can also equate the inequality,but I want to solve for x knowing only N. Not plugging in N and x. I was thinking I could use the derivative of each side. Until x^3 = 6x in the first equation I gave you in my first post. This would not work with the ygraph because their graphs are only equal when N = 85. I don’t have any clue how to solve for x. The rules of simplification I know have failed me.

I want to solve for x. Yes I know that I did not isolate x, but I know the equation has a solution. I cannot get Mathematica to solve it. I was wondering if there is anyway to solve such equations. It is a recurring theme. It is not like a text book problem that is designed to be solved. I keep making complex equations I can’t solve. I don’t know of any way. The rules I have learned aren’t sufficient to solve. The equation is simple enough,, but I thought it would have an easy solution. Does this equation mean anything to you?

How do we solve polynomial equations? I only know how to simplify them. If you could solve this polynomial say N = 85 it would earn a million dollars. Remember who gave it to you. x^3 = N^2 * (x^2/(N^2/x + x)) Solve for x

Well I cannot describe a Utopian society. What I am trying to describe the best possible Earth. Mainly peaceful, less crime, freedom of thought, and no suffering ring. Obviously I have no idea how it works. But can you achieve it without religion? Can science alone do it? And how would you use science to accomplish this? I feel the scientist disregards religion because of what they have experienced growing up. Leave out the miracles such as walking on water. Scientists are more concerned with the way religious people behave. The think they are simple following a bunch of rules and it isn’t true. They think we are stupid and make their own rules But nonbelievers don’t realize they follow the rules because we chose to. It isn’t just about following rules it is a way of life. So a hammer doesn’t smash the hand holding it does? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I know just about any science achievement can be misused. But you just proved my point that properly used science is beautiful. But it cannot improve the world by itself. Religious cuts have contributed almost nothing beneficial to humanity over the span of about 3000 years. Worshiping an imagined God just serves to generate more superstition, myth, fallacy, and plain nonsense. Science has provided most of what we depend on daily, for healthy living, and convenience, not to mention wealth. Without scientific discoveries we would be dead within 3-4 weeks (think chlorine to disinfect water, the Haber Process for the generation of fertilizer , etc).” What history are you reading? Religion is mainly responsible for the world now. The Renaissance, The education system. The Constitution. WWII. And remember a lot of science is the result of war. And we fund science for profit. Prescriptions, medical. Didn’t you see the movie where Tony Stark saw all the profit he made on weapons being used for war?

I thought this topic would bring up the limitations of science. I don’t mean a limitation of thought. But does not one scientific solution lead to more problems. Like the atomic bomb it ends war with Japan but adds the potential to destroy the planet. And I don’t think the scientist are at fault because they have a drive to create. But no matter how smart they claim to be they never consider how others will use the invention. They are foolish. I’m not saying this to insult them. They are smart but so stupid in other ways. I saw the interview with Dr. Fauci and he predicts Covid 4 years ago. Doesn’t this sound an alarm? I think a utopian world will happen when we learn to control science. And by control I don’t mean oppressing it I mean an agreement not to misuse it. That would happen by the attitudes and belief of man. But how do you propose to do that without religion? I mean you could use psychology or sociology. But would these social sciences then be considered religion. It is not the laws of religion most scientist abject to but the spiritual parts. “Do not murder,” makes sense to the scientist. Thoughts

I asked both questions to ask if science is enough to “fix” the world. As scientist (amateur include) we want a better world. But do we work in vain? For those old enough to remember the start of the internet, remember when people called it ideal because everything was anonymous. No race, no gender, only knowledge. I am interesting to see what everyone posts. What if the best world for humans is chaotic? I mean a world we live in. And maybe it has the potential to be a utopia but we can’t reach it. Is science going to realize the potential of a world that already exists? And you want you science to do well, but is it enough. And what as a scientist is the goal of your creations if we can’t fix the world? Like one post said is it an end in itself? And if science could not reach the utopia would you consider religion?

Can science produce a utopian world? and What is your personal goal to the science you do? (edited by mod)

To me we could debate this forever without one convincing the other. But you are a scientist, isn’t what isn’t proven, not understood, the unknown the unexplainable what drives the scientist. He wants to cure illness, understand the physical world, and improve his knowledge. i don’t see where religion would hinder those things. It may actually augment it. i just think into the future when someone scientist walks on water, he will say look I am the first to walk on water. And peers will say, Uh Oh. My question to you is why does your science rely only what we know presently. Man relying only on his own knowledge is foolish.I don’t mean not making informed or best decisions. I mean to you it makes sense but you have incomplete knowledge. This is everybody. If the science is limited by us it will never give answers. Technology does not always improve the world. Science still needs righteousness.

What if the science existed to control the displacement of water? The shape of Jesus sole to a depth of water to support his weight. If you could control how a force is displaced you need less force to move. A rocket ship wastes so much energy to release pressure to lift. I’m not saying such technology exists. It would probably involve controlling atoms. I’m just saying: Jesus does it it’s a fairy tale; Luke Skywalker does it it’s the force.

What if religion and science did not contradict each other but supported each other. Say: Jesus walked on water. Not possible he would sink. But scientifically the area of his sandals displaced the water below him straight down until the water displaced below his feet equals his weight? From your perspective you see religion as wrong, but you forget you are believing that science explains everything. You forget you are believing as much in science as someone is in Jesus. Michio Kanu says both sides are wrong in that they can’t prove anything. So so we argue this instead of working on meaningful science.

Trump did shut down businesses even if it meant hurting the economy.

Keep it simple. Use Photoshop. Almost everyone has it and you can draw anything you want. Also use layers is simple and can display many different screens. I don't know how to view your screen on Skype, but it should be possible. You can share the Photoshop files and no one needs to download more software. You can export to gif or jpeg.

This is a young person that ask why we need a fast computer. I was in graphics school in 1997 and the computers were state of art at the time, and storage was the main factor. If you made a graphic in Photoshop you had no media to back up your file. Thirty people printing at a time made the network crawl. It used to be you had to buy a computer every year because yours went out of date. Now I have 12 cores. I think the problem is programming so those cores work as one. But I am more interested in using less processing power to solve tasks. From what I know of programming it is more complex to programming cores. Does anyone know any good sites on C++ and Python that discuss this? Many cores made the Sega Saturn and PlayStation 3 hard to program. Games were delayed for the PS3. Xbox 360 games were smoother. So even with 7 cores of the Cell processors, if you cannot program it efficiently it does not get used. On the other hand, programmers complained the Nintendo Wii wasn’t powerful enough.

Well I think this guess is relatively close to the smaller factor. Notice that I gave you a way to recreate the work. I also gave you a way to check y=(PNP^2/q) + q^2)/ PNP Does anyone know what the actual PNP is? I can approximate but when dealing with such a large number it is difficult for me to have a check without error. The next step is statistics. N - Nguess If you graph the N minus the guess N there is a Bell Curve (The normal distribution). This distribution also allows the use of calculus to make better math structured guesses.

I agree with curious layman. If you are a believer or not, it has nothing to do with rather you a scientist or not. It could be that more Nobel winners are believers because they are trying to change the world. It is the Nobel Peace prize, after all.