Jump to content

Trurl

Senior Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    517

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Trurl

  1. Trurl
    I guess there is some disagreement on quantum computing. 60 minutes made it sound like it was coming out tomorrow. And there is several sources that say it will break RSA, DSA, and ECDSA. I’ve heard 40 qubits was the highest. But I believe you that it is far off. I see quantum computing as producing too much information. We are going to get an answer and it will be so complex that we will have to assume it is correct. I mean something like how you can’t prove a math theory by crunching numbers. However expanding the amount of different crypto algorithms seems awesome. BTW, I have not read this book.
  2. Trurl
    Several sources have a cliffhanger: quantum computers defeat modern cryptography. The book article of chapter 2: The Physics of Quantum Information, Bouwmeester, mainly says the man in the middle attack. If Eve has the public key she can use it to compare her plain text to the cipher text. The article goes on to say how secure quantum ciphers are. A lot of which I don’t understand. I still don’t know why modern encryption fails. I will research Shor’s algorithm. Thanks for the tip. There is currently much interest in A.I. and quantum computers. I am trying to branch out to other subjects than RSA. But both subjects may destroy humanity. I only say this as a fact of science, but isn’t a device that can manipulate atoms and have infinite processing power God?
  3. Trurl
    Why does the invention of a quantum computer mean the end of RSA? I have seen many sources that claim this, but they never explain the “how.” The one explanation I have read is that they have one of the keys and the way quantum computers work they reveal the pattern only knowing the given part. My question is does this only imply to modern key sizes? What would prevent someone from using a quantum computer to make a gigantic semiprime to factor? And do quantum computers explain mathematical patterns? I don’t think by factoring the RSA semiprimes it would find a pattern. Isn’t the quantum computer still just crunching numbers? From my reading, it was said that quantum computers will design a custom key system every time. I understood it as being a sort of geometry that unique to all computers. Combine A.I. and quantum and you have a thinking machine that can manipulate the world through atoms. SFN will now be moderated by the quantum. But that is ok because we can’t keep track of the trillion-digit keys or us finding patterns is no longer needed. Worse yet, we have lost the argument that the world is a simulation.
  4. Trurl
    I think the scientist’s view determines rather he proves if God does or does not exist to himself. Before the 20th century science and religion were on the same page. Scientists were only explaining what God created for us. Some scientists see the work of God in a mathematical series. Other scientists need more evidence. In fact they dedicate their lives to it. Why do we want more knowledge and discoveries? It is to create and unlock mysteries. But for what reason are we doing this? Technology doesn’t always equal improvement. And what are we doing with all this knowledge? Finding better ways to kill each other? Whatever you believe is a personal choice. Science can’t answer such questions. That is why we seek God.
  5. Trurl
    I realize that I didn’t use an official tax system. I just wanted to illustrate that tax compounded makes more for the government than the amount of money they tax. I choose sales tax. In high school we are taught this is the most fair tax. The more you spend the more your tax. And everyone pays the same rate. But like most taxes I think the more money you have the less the tax affects you. But imagine a flea market with dealers buying from one another. Each spends $100 on an item from the other dealer and pays $6 tax on every $100. The $6 is additive. You still need $100 to purchase, but you must add the $6 tax. The tax is subtracted from the individual buyer each time they spend. The $100 is constant. I am trying to illustrate that the tax has the potential to generate more tax than the original payment of goods. I don’t think this is new. I think it is inherent in taxes themselves. I would say the inability for governments to track transactions of cryptocurrency is why they want cryptocurrency to fail. I know if you have tax it takes away from the amount of money you have left. But money transfers it is never destroyed. I am not an economics expert, but somewhere somehow someone has mapped the movement of money between taxpayers and the amount of tax revenue generated.
  6. Trurl
    It isn’t a tax system. I am just raising the question is taxing money making more revenue. I used sales tax as an example. With every purchase or transaction there is 6%. The cost is $100 to purchase each time. So one person buys something for $100 and pays $6 sales tax. The person who receives the money makes their own purchase of $100 and so forth. So the same $100 generates revenue more than its original value over time. More transactions means more $6 in tax fees.
  7. Trurl
    Sales tax Pyramid Scheme Ok say I buy something for$100 + $6.00 sales tax. Then the person I bought from buys something for $100 + $6.00 sales tax. And so on and so forth for n, the number of money transactions. Does that mean that on $100 the government just make $6.00 * n. And after $100 / $6 times the government is making more money than the original $100? So the act of saying $100 is worth so much in gold, actually makes more than the value of the gold? And then transfer of money is promoted because it generates more value? And you thought bitcoin was a scam.
  8. Trurl
    p=2564855351 For[i = 3, i <= p, i+2, If[(Sqrt[p^3/(p*i^2+i)] - p) < 0.5, x = i, Print[i], i=p+1 ] ] While[x<= p, x+2 If[ Divisible[p,x], Print[x], p = 1]; ] This was an attempt to target the range of divisors into the semi-Prime. I know I am doing division in the second loop, but the range is smaller, where the test equation of the first loop equals approximately zero. I know you can argue the usefulness. However, I still argue that at large semi-Primes with this algorithm, the number of test values is significantly less. And a shout-out to Chat gpt. The reason I am a terrible programmer is syntax; too many languages; too many unknown classes. Now that I have uploaded my algorithm, gpt will render all public key encryption invalid 😜--- only kidding of course. No one believes my work anyway. That was until gpt …
  9. Trurl
    Well that would mean that the human brain was still significant. After all the machines were created and taught by humans. But what would be the distinction of humans and machines? And would machines be as distinct in personality as humans? And would machines be as destructive as humans? Remember the Matrix was designed to create peace. Recall when Agent Smith said that the Matrix was originally a utopian world. The effort of the Matrix's design for peace is flawed. Obviously, the machines don't know how to achieve a perfect world.
  10. Trurl
    Well freewill or predestined, we will find out. I know this is in psychology topic, but it is just as much computer science. Imagine Chat gpt learning hate speech or other crap that we have advertised, as the A.I. is being trained. Would it inspire to be an architect or academic or would it do something else? I don’t think there is a thing called artificial intelligence. It is just intelligence.
  11. Trurl
    The shear difficulty in making a secure one-way-function that will produce a public and secure private key makes security based on intense computation impossible to test, verify, and rely on the system. It is one thing to create a one-way-function but how will that one-way-function define the cypher that encrypts the message. My example which I don’t know if it has been tried before is to use the addition of large numbers, relates to the odometer problem I proposed earlier in this tread. We are always plugging numbers into the functions by using counting numbers. But what if we start counting by the pattern before numbers are placed into the function. Instead of 1.2.3.4.5…. to infinity, we modify the numbers by a function and then place it into the function machine? I know I am talking very abstractly and this is difficult for me to explain. But what if you counted only those numbers in the odometer that had 2 or more instances of a digit. 101100. If you count by a function that solves those numbers than you only see the distance between the pattern. However, if you counted 1.2.3.4.5… it would not show a pattern. There would be arbitrary distances between reading of 2 or more digits. I hypothesize this is why we can’t see a pattern in Primes. ______________________- I wrote this last week. It doesn’t make sense, but I post it so someone might see the abstract idea it represents. On the odometer you count linearly. So, a number 90909 may occur at a greater distance from the current pattern number minus the previous repeating of the similar digit. Simply put 90909 would occur after 50505. But the distance between such numbers is dependent on counting linearly. That is the same way we look for a pattern in Primes. Is that what is making it so difficult to factor semi-Primes? Does this make any sense? Have you ever had an abstract idea that is hard to put to words? 90909 – 50505 = 40404 but does 50505 – 50500 greater occur before 90909 – 90900. It depends on how I am classifying repeated digits but do larger digits occur after the smaller digits of reoccurring digits? For example, 111111 is linearly faster that 999999, but 099999 comes before 111111. This was the original idea for the odometer example. I know it didn’t explain my idea. Can anyone put my thought into a workable idea?
  12. Trurl
    I think the author is referring to the geometric symbolism of this pictures. Like Leonardo using the triangle to represent the trinity. But pictures tell a thousand words. And making these images in math as a universal language that is easer to share that translating a Bible and printing it. I have the Bible but I am no expert on math symbolism in the Bible. But I think the mathematics thread is the proper place to put this topic. The geometry here is complex. And we don’t understand it all. I wish the author would have used only one example and explained his thoughts. But this is Dan Brown’s territory.
  13. Trurl
    I agree that 4+ thousand are not all “seen”. But the ads are targeted. They will guide your interest. So you do a search and get 1000 responses you wii be guided to one. It is an interactive process. Remember search engines control what is found. I’m not a psychologist but when you look at a page of content you make multiple decisions and assumptions in milliseconds. Also you are not aware of all your thoughts. That is just observations on how I approach advertisements. I would put effort in designing an experiment but the advertisers already know all this. I wish I knew the goal of such advertising. And I wonder how it effects our decisions. And why did we allow this internet evolve this way. @dimreepr Ads to other ads. But reviews are not reliable. If Google results in a sale they should care what you buy. That should make them neutral. But are they neutral? I became interested in this because so many people are calling this out saying it is negatively effecting us. We don’t have the means to beat it, but we can defend against it waiting on the world to change.
  14. Trurl
    It is important to note that my Pastor brought up the advertisements we are exposed to. It is me that compared it to external influences. But my question can be answered by those who prefer Faith or strictly science. We could say everyone has their own beliefs. But what influenced these beliefs? My estimate of how many ads we saw a day was around 500. But I think 4+ thousand is probably right. If someone or something is influencing how you surf the web than everything you see is causing a decision reaction in your mind. I know you think that fool believes in God. The scientific method determines my decisions. But the influencers already know what you believe. So it comes down to did you mindfully make that decision or did some web content specifically geared to you help you make up your mind? And I am no different than you. I hope we have free will and can work together even if we don’t share the same views. I have been reading on this subject and I think people are now seeing the bad of social media. But it is not my idea behind this. This was known before in what Bruce Schneider writes. So you say your brain sees not what you’re eyes see. But this is subconscious isn’t it? If 4000 was legitimate Google should know. How do we test this scientifically in a practical way? I mean is there any way to count average ads per hour? What would you say is the minimal speed in that a news story or ad could make you “think” about it? I’m guessing milliseconds but that’s just a guess.
  15. Trurl
    My Pastor said last Sunday that Google estimates that 4 to 10 thousand advertisements are seen by a person on a given day. That seems high, but I wonder if it factors the data tracing the user by computers like surf history and phone usage. I was taught that you design your according to the target audience. But this rule does not work backwards because I don’t always know who has me as their target audience. So we are subject to thousands of messages a day and we don’t know who created them or how they are trying to influence us. We don’t know what it is that they are trying to make as act. I hope free will exists in that we could make choices and not be controlled by ads. But it still has an effect of some sort that we are probably unaware of. My question is: “Are these ads a byproduct of communication or are the ads controlled to influence behavior? This topic was the theme of the Matrix. Neo is offered candy by the Oracle and replies, Do I have a choice?” That is does he make a choice or does the fact that he thinks a certain way means his choice is already determined.
  16. Trurl
    I don’t understand. I have been on the opposite end of this in my simple yet interesting post. It just goes to prove my theory that a pattern of Primes will never happen. Not because there isn’t a pattern but because the thoughts that lead to a pattern cannot be communicated from one person to another. For my post it came down to if I could factor a large SemiPrime or not. I couldn’t do it efficiently. But could reflect my programming skills and not my equations. Just as I started, your write up is too complex. It would take months to sort it out and it could be wrong. I have the same troubles when explaining. Give me an example where I can plug and chug. I am always interested in Primes. Why don’t you elaborate on the diagram of the ellipse.
  17. Trurl

    I was listening to T.W.I.T. and something the discussion made me notice some thoughts I have had before. A team of South Korean scientist claim to have found a super conductor at room temperature. The only  problem is that no one believes them.

    That got me wondering. I thought that if I found a pattern in division of semiPrimes, my first thought was to share it on the internet. But of course such a  bold claim will never been believed.

    I saw this phenomenon when I researched and read about the Riemann Hypothesis. Someone claims a solution. That is right, them and thousands of others. And it is not that they don’t have good, creative ideas. Instead nobody can put together what the heck they are saying to prove them right or wrong.

    I know what you are thinking: The scientific method and peer review will prove them right or wrong. That is what I thought too. But no human can possible vet thousands of papers. Maybe A.I. can help. But as with the South Korean scientists it became a joke and everyone is skeptical.

    And if you need more examples look at the Presidential Campaign. People don’t pick a side based on logic, and there are conflicting views. The psychologist on T.W.I.T. said you can’t tell someone who believes a lie the truth. It only further solidifies their false views.

    Do you think it is any different with science? Science beliefs change all the time too. You could say something new was discovered to change those views. But it doesn’t change the fact that those scientific beliefs which were once the standard were in fact wrong.

  18. Trurl

    Say you kick someone, and you want to know how hard you are going to hit them. You figure if you increase the mass behind your kick so it will hurt more. But you could also increase the velocity of the kick so that force equals mass times acceleration.

     

    But this relationship would not be linear. So, you make a graph depicting the force as opposed to velocity. The graph would be curved to say the least and it would not be one to one or in that case uniform.

     

    The graph would also be difficult to analyze. You could graph one mass against a variable velocity. (Or a fixed velocity over mass) But if there was a pattern for this equation it would be difficult to see. You have the equation but no way to determine what way is better to kick (by increasing velocity or mass or both). Sure, you can figure it out for a case-by-case basis. But what if you didn’t have a computer and were in a fight and had to rely on intuition?

     

    This is what I got out of the book I read on the Riemann’s hypothesis. Sure, there may be some higher math I don’t understand that may solve the problem. But isn’t this graphing problem the reason we can’t find a pattern in Prime numbers?

     

    I hypothesize, that in order to find a pattern in Primes we must find a simple pattern where they relate other than one equation. Of course, this is easier said than done, and I am not clamming I can do it.

     

    But think of this. If you could prove 2 numbers to equal a semi-Prime. That would prove that both numbers are Prime and would be a Primality test.  We could argue the fact of the difficulty of knowing from the beginning a number is a semi-Prime, but for now assume we are looking for patterns in all known semi-Primes.

     

    Would a graph of the “discovered” Prime numbers result in a graphing challenge of the velocity vs mass? Based on values we know that are Prime and semi-Prime, would we not have a random data set to graph and find a pattern if one existed?

     

    It sounds more complicated than it is, but it is a simple hack to find patterns that are not easily graphed.

  19. Trurl
    This is not an easy question. It could be reworded to say, “how to perform at peak performance?” Like how to do math under sleep deprivation or how to find an address in a city you do not know with time being a factor. I think this is psychology’s best application. But I am not the best at doing karate forms. I try to get a visual picture and “rotate” left, right, turn, kick but I am wondering how the others go through the routine. I was wondering if there are any techniques for kinesthetic intelligence or is it my learning approach?
  20. Trurl
    Kinesthetic intelligence How do you improve kinesthetic intelligence? Say walking on a treadmill and trying to add times and speeds and calories. I find it hard to do mental math when walking in the treadmill. And then there is karate forms. When I get tired say 20 pushups followed by 30 sit-ups the forms become more challenging. And then I make mistakes like kicking with the right leg instead of the left side. I know this is natural to become tired. And this is why we train. Actually once I recover I feel better and probably have better concentration. But how do you improve concentration and performance as you become exhausted?
  21. Trurl
    @noobinmath I wish I could create a pattern from a sieve. Here is a proposal about how to go about it. If you graph the 2 equations separately as pnp equals all integers zero to infinity, as the equation is less than one; pnp is a semi-Prime and the Prime number is conformed to be Prime. This may or may not work. Also do not confuse x on the graph equaling pnp as x in the equation equaling the Prime number. I will have more on this later. But since you want a pattern in the sieve I thought I would share my attempt. Where x * y = pnp 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 pnp = x ; at x on the graph at that instance = pnp So where 5* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*5^2+5)] – pnp = 0, then pnp is a semi-Prime 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. [(pnp / (Sqrt[(pnp^3 / (pnp*5^2+5)])) -5] == 0 == [5* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*5^2+5)] – pnp]
  22. Trurl
    You are right there is a lot of Riemann stuff. I just thought the surface had to do with the graph of the distribution of zeros. I’m probably wrong but this stuff is complex. I’m am looking to find any application of Prime numbers I can. Other than cryptography. Why are Primes so popular in mathematics. Just because we can’t find their pattern? Why did Primes interest the ancient Greeks if you can’t built cities with them? Are the Riemann surfaces related to the Riemann Hypothesis? I believe that Prime numbers relate to calculus in the analysis of the graph. If you could find the graphs that form the Riemann function you could find the graphs that when combined make up any function’s graph. That is what I took from the book. But what other applications of Primes are there?
  23. Trurl
    Differential forms on a Riemann surface Calculus applies to the properties of the graph. A differential equation. I only know the basics of such things. But if you get bored studying forms try analyzing the Zeta function 😜 Just looking at that link I posted I can’t even follow the notation let alone the math. But if differential forms have to deal with the addition and manipulation of functions then you would want to study the Riemann stuff.
  24. Trurl
    @Genady Did you read: Prime Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis; Mazur and Stein? I finished it Tuesday. Excellent read. It focused on the logical steps behind the hypothesis instead of deriving equations. There were equations but the book showed the reasoning behind them. I have never read a math work that gets you up to speed on such a complex problem so fast. 5 stars ⭐️
  25. Trurl
    But isn’t a golden spiral a type of log spiral? What if the stair steps of the Riemann graph could be put geometrically on to a logarithmic spiral? And with various logarithmic spirals able to be drawn changing the “amount of step?” But I understand you point. I have seen some good demonstrations of the golden spiral on YouTube.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.