Trurl

This is a program I wrote. It isn't very useful yet because I need a software library that handles large numbers. But if you read it you will see what I have been saying all along. Of course I could be wrong, but that goes without saying. I need some computer scientist to explain how I can run a program similar to this one with large numbers. /* This program utilizes factor patterns to estimate the value p in the N=p*q keys in RSA and other cryptography ciphers that use the product of semi-prime numbers. Note it is complex to program math into a programming language. Large values could easily crash this program. As an example I recommend testing 85 for N and 5 for x. Also note that finding the error between PNP and pnp_check is crucial to solving this problem. For this demenstration estimate is set to 7. Abviously to make this program usefull estimate must be determined exactly. For now this stands as a demonstration of the equation. */ #include "stdafx.h" #include <math.h> #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main() { bool testvalue = false; int PNP; double root, estimate = 7; float x, pnp_check; cout << "Input N the know product of 2 Prime numbers" << endl; cin >> PNP; do { cout << "Enter the small Prime factor of N as test value+." << endl; cin >> x; /* PNPcheck = sqrt[(((((x ^ 2) * (PNP ^ 4) + 2 * PNP ^ 2 * (x ^ 5)) + x ^ 8) / PNP ^ 4) * (((PNP ^ 2) / x ^ 2)))]; estimate = (2 * x ^ 5 / PNP ^ 2 + x ^ 8 / PNP ^ 4); */ pnp_check = (((( (x*x) * (PNP*PNP*PNP*PNP) + 2 * (PNP * PNP) * (x*x*x*x*x)) + (x*x*x*x*x*x*x*x)) / (PNP*PNP*PNP*PNP)) * ( ( (PNP*PNP) / (x*x) ))); root = sqrt(double(pnp_check)); if ((abs(root - double(PNP))) < ((estimate))) { testvalue = true; }; cout << "The root that compares to N is " << root << endl; if (root > PNP) { cout << "Chose lower x if program does not end." << endl; }; cout << pnp_check << endl; if (root < PNP) { cout << "Chose higher x if program does not end." << endl; }; } while (testvalue != true); cout << endl << endl << endl; cout << "The smaller Prime Factor is around " << x << endl; system("pause"); return 0; }

Well there is some learning and fundamentals to the question. I wish I could locate the question and the specifications. But it is the usage of this programming exercise I don't like. Say there is a C++ you have this exercise, then you take Java you see this problem again. If I can find the exact problem, you might recognize it. I'm just trying to demonstrate that actual programming differs from the bank problem. One its first use it probably demonstrated arrays and memory, loops and program structure. You make a good argument, but trust me if you would have come across this as a final project you would agree that the curriculum needs updated. I've been researching and studying trying to improve my programming skills. But elementary and high schools have upgraded there STEM programs. I know some programming experience is better than no programming experience. However, the quality of a lot of colleges is too dumbed down. It does take some know how to organize the bank problem, but a high school student is spending hours to program a robot. (Yes I know adult students are pressed for time, but why isn't the curriculum similar to the high school's?) I have some learning in adult education. I know that curriculum design is serious stuff. I think that is the problem here. The instructor may well be an awesome programmer but he must evaluate us based on an established curriculum. The instructor must teach the curriculum good or bad. But I don't know how you would improve the class without better curriculum design and the ability of the instructor to modify curriculum. The better curriculum is possible. It is the leeway of the instructor to improve it. For example, a math class could have a recitation where students ask questions and bring up questions that both relate and explore the material. Then a lab where questions such as the bank problem are ask. The bank problem was actually designed well the first time it was ask. But if you search online classes you will see many students complain about it. Why this problem again? My code is supposed to do something cool.

I was just wondering if anyone has come across this computer programming exercise. You are a programmer hired by a bank to manage several bank accounts. That isn’t always the exact description, but this question is standard for online courses. And from people I talk to they had the same question at traditional colleges. This is bad for uncountable reasons. This question even goes across different languages, such as C++ and when you learn Java it is the same question with different syntax. Not to mention a quick web search will answer the question. You are supposed to be a computer scientist and they give you a bank question. My complaint is that no one is writing proper computer science curriculum. I have taken classes how to teach adults and with my limited experience this question is an insult to the student. The thing is these programming classes aren’t teaching you to problem solve and program real solutions. Yes, I know there are better classes that a fifth grader is programming a robot and now has better programming skills than me. I know there are better questions that you can ask an adult programming student. I put this in the computer science, but this is also an education question. I get they want to demonstrate arrays and memory storage, but the truth is this is a disservice to the students. So, you pay to go to school and they teach you programming exercises that don’t go together. Then you graduate and you have to teach yourself how to actually program. Basically, what I’m saying is that a YouTube video or a Learn C++ book in 24 hours is more cost effective. How broad is this bank computer program? Has anyone here encountered it? BTW this bank exercises is usually a major project of the programming courses. Obviously I don't mean that it is just a simple exercise. This is a final project.

Well these are not directly Christian questions. They are (or were) what I question about life. You are right about the meaning of life opening a can of worms. My beliefs now is that the meaning of life is as debatable as proving a creator exists. I believe we make our own meaning. My goal was to share some questions. The intent was to see what others questioned. It can be religious or scientific. I know many questions have been ask since the beginning of humanity. However, I don't know with conflicting personal views if we are asking the same questions or just a result of life experiences. Many religions tell to share the faith. But we know arguing if God exists is exhausting and usually pointless. You have to respect people have their own beliefs. But are the asking the same questions? What do they value? Arguing seldom helps. On this forum the goal is debate so we can discuss the arguments. But it is the questions we ask or don't ask are the foundation of all our beliefs.

Think for a minute. Don’t think religion or science. Think belief. There is a difference between belief and religion. Do you believe there are other worlds? Not just in space planets but other dimensions such as string theory. Now you must decide if these worlds automatically exist or they were created. If the worlds were created, you must decide if the creator actually cares about the human race. If you do believe in a God that cares, you must decide if those teaching about him actually represent him. If you believe God doesn’t exist, you must question the meaning of life. I tried to remain unbiased here. But to me these are the questions I ask. Michio Kaku is correct in saying we can’t prove or disprove God. They only reason to argue is to try to influence someone’s beliefs. The arguing isn’t fighting. Debates can be fun. These questions are personal, and I don’t try and force my answers on you. The entire idea behind a religion is to believe in those answers that make sense to a person’s own experiences. I will say this. We don’t know of things we don’t know. I mean in science we find something new and don’t know much about it. It makes you question if it were there the whole time and how we could have not known about it before. Simply put, just because we haven’t experienced something, does not mean that a whole new world does not exist. Keep this in mind when you answer these questions. BTW, I do not claim these questions are original. I have studied many sources. I think Michio Kaku explained the question of who is right best when he was ask about religion. He has several Youtube videos. These are just the questions I feel I have been asking myself. It adds fun to the debate, instead of simply yelling because you agree or disagree. As far as I know no one has asked these questions on SFN before. That is, at least without open-ended questions. I'm sure we have all ask some of these questions before.

[ x^4 + (2*x)/N^2 + x^10/N^4 ] ^(1/4) = x The brackets are the 4th root of N = x * y , the product of 2 Prime numbers x is the smaller Prime factor Example N = 85, x = 5, and y = 17 I apologize for the blunder above. But you need to understand I literally tried thousands of equations. So far this is my best. Check it for errors. Is anyone having any luck with other combinations? x^3 + 2*x^4/N^2 + x^6/N^4 = x^2

I hope someone responds. I am serious. And to show that I am serious I offer the equation as far as I can simplify. [ x^4 + (2*x)/N^2 + x^10/N^4 ] ^(1/4) = x The brackets are the 4th root of We know N = 85, so solving for x should equal 5. It works when you know both N and x, but is this enough to solve for N? This is my best attempt so far. So if you are curious please respond with your own polynomial simplifications. Respond if you fill that I am serious and on the right path of solving the least common multiple.

Reduced this polynomial: {(((((N^4 / x) + 2 * (N^2 * x^2) + x^5) / n^3) * x^3) / N} to ((N^4 / x^5 + 2 * N^2 / x^2 + x) * x^3) / (N4 / x^4) Sqrt{((N^4 / x^5 + 2 * N^2 / x^2 + x) * x^3) / (N4 / x^4)} =x Need some math help. I reduced the polynomial. However, the result does not seem any easier to solve. The black is the original the red is reduced. N is known. And x is to be solved. Can anyone solve this simplified polynomial?

Can anyone think of a theory that is disproven, but still useful?

See attached PDF. Here is a bunch of patterns when trying to substitute and find x knowing only N. Again, a lot of zero equals zero; and a bunch of high degree hard to simplify polynomials. But if you look at the fraction Mathematica has created (while knowing both x and N) you see there is a simplification of the polynomial. No guarantees, but it may just be possible to simplify the polynomial equation to make it way more useful. For example, the equations and fractions are of the form: (N^4 * x) / x^5 = y y^4= N^4 / x^4 So these fractions are: (Something Simplified) / (x^5y) The right combination might just simplify a large, cumbersome polynomial into something more useful. Or not. You be the judge. Download the PDF and test for yourself. 20190204VeryImportantPatterns20190330.pdf

So if I follow this post right, we can never prove or disprove anything. So we are back to the beginning of not knowing. If we prove something someone will just disprove it. And if science proves it, the proof is incomplete because we lack the evidence of proof. So a theory is useful until disproven. So it use to be useful when we were ignorant and didn't know it didn't work. To bad that disproven theory disproved so many other theories.........

(x^2 * (N^2 + 2 * x^3)) / N^2 x^2 = ((N^4*x^2*N^2*x^5) +x^8) / N^4 ((N^4*x^2 + 2*N^2) * x^5) / (N^4*x^2) (((N^4/x) + 2*N^2*x^2 + x^5)/N^3) / N) * x^3 = x^2 Where y = ((N^4/x) + 2*N^2*x^2 + x^5)/N^3) Each of these 4 equations is separate. I just wanted to post and show just how fun plugging and chugging can be. It doesn’t mean every equation is a useful solution. But plugging and chugging is fun when working with series. It is a place where computers and automation of equations does prove useful. I recently read a journal entry where it described brute force as a way to prove or disprove. I am not worried about that debate, but I am interested in using computers to look for patterns. I hope I typed these equations correctly. It is late so if you get any typos let me know the equations can be extremely hard not to create mass confusion. But I challenge you to test these equations and try your own creations. There are infinitely many, but I want one that is useful to describe the patterns of factorization. I don’t care if the equation simplifies to zero equals zero. I would prefer it didn’t but the quest for the useful equation begins. Oh, N is the known product of 2 numbers x and y, where x is the smaller factor

Well the first public key cipher, RSA, relies on the product of 2 Prime numbers. No pattern in Primes but you can solve the least common multiple and that will find the small Prime number of the product. I don't know them all but several public key crypto relies on the product of 2 Primes. I refer to RSA because it was the first and one of the most popular. Other crypto relies on logarithms or curves. But as far as I know the strength of RSA is still relevant. Most attacks are brute force and not on reversing the cyphering algorithm.

Ok, so I ask about a different math project because I have been stuck on my semi-Prime project for years. Actually it is several dozen of projects in one. But still the same problem. So I have been searching for a new project. I will be moving on to computer modeling and computer graphics. I was reading an article from a math journal that mentioned solving math problems with “brute force” using computers. Basically it discussed the use of computers to eliminate or find patterns then offer the result as proof the math problem s or is not solvable. I don't know if I agree computers testing every possible numbers results as proof. However it does seem interesting especially in response to cryptography and computer security. So I will work on the Prime project in the background. I still have many new project possibilities. I just wish someone would agree that cryptography algorithms that rely on the least common multiple are now less secure.

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.