Trurl

But you didn't even look at the PDF's. For an triangle of 3 and 4, I would say split it into 2 right angles. The first with 3 as the hypotenuse. There are only so many size triangles that have 3 as a hypotenuse. And only 2 that I know of that have a side of 4. So take the length of 3 and substitute x/3 = cos and y/3 = sin. Take this trigonometric pythagorean identity and substitute it into a non pythagorean identity and you will have the inverse cosine and it will give you the angle. Subtract the found values of the right triangle of the 3 hypotenuse from 4 and use that subtracted number again substituted into the pythagorean and other identities. I know my work needs polished, but read through it and give it a chance. At the very least show me where I went wrong. The reason it only takes 2 values is because the angles in my problem share a base. By base I mean a common starting point. Please read the whole 2 PDF's. I welcome feedback; If I'm right or wrong.

On my site www.constructorscorner.com I have found a way to break any triangle into 2 right triangles and solve it knowing only 2 sides. I know it sounds unlikely and it could be wrong, but if you go to the homepage you will see 2 trig parabola pdf downloads. The ideas need refined to be simpler, but if you read it all the idea is there. You may also be interested in my math section under the title bar --- ideas and gadgets. Trurl

I’m no psychologist. But aren’t you saying we are always thinking, so when we see a question we think. But if we understand the question our thinking gives us an answer? Isn’t a better question: “How does the question make us think through patterns of thought and our knowledge?” or “What stimulus produces what answer (or type of answer) to the problems?” I agree with the others that it sounds impossible.

Thanks abateNth for the feedback. I do have a problem with x=x. And if I find a solution it will have to be accurate to work with large Primes. I just have this image in my mind of a parabola or logarithmic spiral revealing a key to Primes. I mean the Primes are already there. Like when x is found to be always true. The trick is finding the series. Your right it is no easy task--if possible. But just the though of the existence of a solution makes me wonder if it could be done. If someone could solve this problem, the solution would solve many other series.

I have over a 100 pages of attempts to find a pattern in Prime numbers. However you only have to read one of them. Go to the Homepage at www.constructorscorner.com and under the date of the updates click the link of the new work. A lot of work still needs done, but I believe I have found a way to find “x” on the Parabola. I am looking for feedback on my work. Let me know what you think. Can it work?

Ok so I tried to make a program that solves the log spiral. It was true for all values. So the program was a lot of work and was just a stupid, amateur error. Hey but that’s ok because I am an amateur mathematician. This time however there is more to the work. Though it is very much incomplete it is a great outline or concept. Yes, it probably doesn’t work like so much of my solutions do, but if there was a simple, elementary mathematic way to solve for Primes this would be it. Be sure to read the supporting work. Or just download the 36 page PDF which has most of the work except for a few recent comments/corrections. Please fell free to comment here or explain which math laws or definitions I am breaking. Download the PDF Here ------- View the latest work Here Thanks for the input, Trurl

I am still working with Prime numbers. I have some good ideas, just need to see what someone with some math knowledge has to say. You'd be suprised but most people I know aren't it to math. But luckly probably everyone who views this forum is. Here is my latest work. I expect there to be many errors since it is incomplete. However, the concept is there. So let me know what you think. The link for the new work is: http://www.constructorscorner.com/ideas_and_gadgets/math/math_hunch/hunch_00001/just_a_hunch/spiral_encryption.htm Trurl

With math you read others knowledge, learn from it, then create something new. It is a system. While math thinker may work alone on their ideas, in the end it comes down to share it and add to the knowledge or let the idea be lost in symbols. It is something that can be seen at any level of mathematics. My vote: “always”

I've added a summary, that shows the log spirals and has the work of finding the equations. Remember everything comes from the geometry of the log spirals. Then S = r * theta; a quadractic equation to find x; and then the previous Prime number is compared to the unknown Prime. http://www.constructorscorner.com/ideas_and_gadgets/math/math_hunch/hunch_00001/just_a_hunch/prime_summary.htm I know it is a lot of reading. Let me know if this better describes the problem. Trurl

Ok, I am working on a write up, but might take a while. The easiest way to follow the equation now is with the example of 19 and 23. Basically you put those two numbers into the two main equations and solved for X using the quadratic equation. Then you put 19 and X into the given equation and you have 23. It works for the Primes I have tried. I am also trying to write a simple loop in C++. I am not really a good programmer so this also might take some time. The theory is there. There is merit behind the idea of relating the 2 logarithmic spirals. Just the results have to be verified. Thanks for you input cosine. There is much to this problem that needs explored.

Secondly, the variables in your derivations are VERY hard to follow. Yes I know. I haven't written the entire work out yet. Just the rough to get some feed back. Let S2 = the second prime S2 is the circular arc of the second logarithm. There are two logarithms. The fact that I have related both log spirals to prime number values is what allows such a simple equation to work. I drew what I refered to as the boxed spiral here http://www.constructorscorner.com/ideas_and_gadgets/math/math_hunch/hunch_00001/just_a_hunch/spiral_primes.htm For the primes I have test it seems to work. Remember you start with the last known prime and put in the value of the next number to determine if it is prime. I will be posting more details on why I used the values I chose. Again if there is any questions just ask. It really takes a lot reading to fully understand, but once you get it its easy. Check out the Math Hunches Section at: http://www.constructorscorner.com/ideas_and_gadgets/math/math_hunch/hunch_00001/hunches_home.htm

cosine, did you read the equation on the link or read the earlier attempts. I still need someone to verify this but it doesn't hold true for all numbers. here is the link to better explain. it is hard to write these things and organize them into the web pages. Check Here, http://www.constructorscorner.com/ideas_and_gadgets/math/math_hunch/hunch_00001/just_a_hunch/prime_code.htm

Oops, back to the scratch paper. I didn't check my answer throughly enough. I had so many equations going... Anyway, I still believe I am close. If I can find a way to relate the two different logarithmic spirals. It will be solved. The only trouble is the equations for logarithmic spirals have many different hard to solve variables.

This is work I have been working on Primes. I just want to know what people that know a little about math think. (They can appreciate it more than not knowing a little trig.) Here it is check it out and let me know what you think. http://www.constructorscorner.com/ideas_and_gadgets/math/math_hunch/hunch_00001/just_a_hunch/prime_theory002.htm

By my opinion I meant what my "hunch" was. After all don't all theories start out as hunches? I am by no means an expert on any of these things. But I remember a theory called the Gaia hypothesis If someone were to call the Net living I think a system between people, machine, and ideas including everything of the Net--- this is how they'd have to do it. Do you think the Earth itself is alive? There are many critics. But everyone has to admit it is an interesting way to describe life on Earth. And if a system such as the life on earth can be alive, could a system of machines be alive? It is more than just comparing the processes of single living organisms.

I just skimmed the thread and haven't read the entire augument. But we are trying to prove the Internet is alive or not, or assuming it is alive and trying to see what would kill it? I saw a documentary with a scientist who claimed the Earth was alive because of its systems and the way living and nonliving creatures worked to create "a living" Earth. In my opinion, I would say the Internet is alive. Not due to any one computer code, but the entire system that forms the Internet.

I went with the 360. It is rumored there is a key board in the making. And with Garage Games' free, game making software comming out on the 10th, it is another reason to get the 360. PC mag compared specs. And in float point units it had the 360 as 1 teraflop compared to the PS3 2 teraflop. The Wii's flops weren't in the chart. If anyone has read this in PC Magazine or knows the specs please post them.

Thanks guys. After reading the post I decided that the repeater might be to complicated and take days to get it to work properly. I hadn't had luck with the bridging mode. Also I only had one access point that would repeat, but needed it like you said to hook to a land line to the main router. I was using a Net Gear WG302 and a Linksys WRT54GS combined with a Belkin Wireless G (no model #). Most of the the routers can act as access points, but I run into trouble with the IP address and having them communicate. Here is the new problem. I took and ran an antenna from the access point (which is connected by a land line to the main router) and hooked an outer antenna. Now from the other house I get a signal between 25% and 57% by the windows. The signal is good but what is the best way to spread the siganal throught the house? As a last resort I would use a repeater. But do I definitely need one. I don't want to buy another $200 piece of equipment. What do you think?

I have about 500 ft through 2 house walls to send a Wifi signal. I am using an antenna and the signal ranges from about 20 to 30 percent as long as the computer is by the window. My question is how do you attempt to set one router to act as a bridge and pick up the signal of the main rounter? I have set the channels the same, the WEP the same. But I haven't detected the main router on the second router. How do I be sure the routers are communicating? And will building this network give me a stronger signal? Thanks, Trurl

Hello, I have been away form SFN since Feb 7th. I have been busy working on things. But I am trying to do a math contest on my site. It is free and I am not selling anything. I just want to share ideas. See www.constructorscorner.com for more information. It runs from May 1st to July 30th Hope to see you there.

I like Schaum's Outlines when doing a self study. But I think the best choice for you is at this link Click Here these books are involved and not a traditional textbook. You will learn a lot.

Thanks for the insight lightwave. Triz is kind of a balance of all the factors. Game Theory is a science of itself. Any way it was good to get some knowlege from an engineer. Thanks

The book was fiction, however based on a successful engineering team that invented something. Unfortunately it doesn't say what it was based on in the book. I must have read about that in a review of the book. But let's talk invention. Obviously lightwave you and sunspot disagree slightly on the approach, but agree on the invention. So I will ask you guys some questions. (For background I only have a sophomore level completed before I left school.) I know that engineers have many different duties, but I am concerned with research. First, how do you show progress with inventing something new. I mean as an amateur I do little projects and sometimes they don't work and all I have is scrap paper with some math on it. How do you show progress to keep the research going. And the second problem I face as an amateur (doing my own small (very small) projects) is finding projects that are worthwhile and have enough information. I mean those things you would probably have given on a job, but wouldn’t think of otherwise. Something like the scientists of the Manhattan Project knowing e = mc2 but not having the access to Uranium or know what kind of plane would deliver the bomb. I think that’s why amateurs are often forced to reinvent the wheel which may or may not lead to a discovery. Still it would be difficult to invent something new without having the right problem and conditions. So with that do you guys have any advice for amateurs? How would you guys set up a small design project?

In the book, "Engineering Design: A Day in the Life of Four Engineers," a group of recently graduated engineers are put on the same team with the goal to design an electronic car. They don't do it. But the point was that they didn't know that they could fail they came up with useful results. This is assumming a team of veteran engineers would have thought the task to be impossible and not try every option because they are really on what they have learned is possible. This is based on a real experiement which I believe was successful. My question is does anyone know what project that was? Or if you have any more information on the subject?

Is this a small engine? I have read about small engines using a circuit with a capacitor to store energy and let it build up then release it all at once. Just something I read. I really haven't worked a lot with electrical things. But if you are building electricity across a circuit a capacitor does increase voltage once it is released. That is how they did it years ago.