LB?
It's all about triangles, but not so much about squares. It can't be correct though. >>4062874 unless one of them ties into the QFT. Or they all tie into the QFT (And I'm not talking in some higher dimension shit, like "twist the dimensions" kind of nonsense, but as in they all end up doing the QFT).
I made it. I like triangles and I like squares. Sometimes I put triangles inside of squares.
I love you too, Topo!
So in one of the initial threads when you were talking about creating a new column that we control by adding more factors. That was a hint to see the patterns more clearly.
Looking for the missing pattern will be the new primality test.
Trailing off a bit, buuuuut. (1 + c)/2 =1/2, so (2 + c)/3 => 2/3 and (1 + c)/3 => 1/3?
(1 + c)/2 will always be valid for F2, while (2 + c)/3 will always be valid for F3?