Likewise with the lack of ideas.
It's good to see you here again Chris. All this acceleration you were talking about is exciting (not to mention Q posting that IP address).
How did you get that first picture? This is what I get when I make a picture out of (x+n)(x+n) being odd.
To put it into further context, here's odd (x+n)(x+n) when c is a semiprime. I also did the same for even values of (x+n)(x+n). I definitely don't see any useful patterns here.
I don't know if you would have seen it but some of us have been discussing every so often the premise of how we would create some kind of guide for the outside world when we completely understand what we're working on. When it is done, it's going to cause very big things to happen around the world, so people are going to want to know what the hell is going on obviously. There are a lot of things to take into account if we were to make some kind of explanation/guide/thing: people who have little to know math knowledge, people who have little to no programming knowledge, people who are going to overanalyze it and think that it's some kind of super complex secret government program made by PhDs that requires a degree to understand, etc. You sound like you would have some useful ideas when it comes to this.
Some of what we talked about was near the bottom of RSA #9, but to recap, I remember we were talking about whether it would be text-based or maybe video-based. If it was text based, for a start, it would be huge and it would take a lot of reading. There would also be a lot of visual things to take into account. Also, at least as we would plan it out, file format might become a bit of a problem. I did a bunch of this myself early on, including an explanation of how to run code as best I could for some anons who requested something like that, but it's all in pdf form. As much as I can sit here and say I didn't put any malicious Javascipt into it and that I just exported it as a pdf from LibreOffice Writer, I'm anonymous on the internet, so nobody has any particular reason to trust me. Video would be a useful way to do it since we could have someone narrate with diagrams and things, but it means someone deanonymizing themselves slightly (Topol offered, and I guess I could also do it but I don't know if not having an American accent would be a problem).
Did you see the thing about the influenza cure? Acceleration, as the boss here said.
It'd be cool to have a thing that lets you generate a new key pair, showing you the modulus etc, lets you input a plaintext message, shows you the encrypted version of the message, shows the math that turns the private key into the public key and shows the math that unencrypts the message too. That would certainly dispel any skepticism. I don't know much about IPFS but if it's p2p does that mean whoever hosts it would have their IP exposed? It also means people would have to figure out how to use IPFS and install it and everything, and that plays into the idea that a lot of normalfags will just avoid looking into it because they'll need to put effort into learning about something to even begin learning about the other thing. I think if we go that route then we could have a complete explanation there and maybe a broader one somewhere like, I don't know, YouTube, Medium, you know, one of those websites that wouldn't crash if too many people looked at it but where anyone can upload something.
I didn't mean hosting HTML on YouTube. I'm talking about the concept of explanations in general. With the YouTube/Medium/whatever thing, it would be complimentary to the full-on Javascript-integrated explanation. It would be a different thing (like a video or just a whole bunch of text) for people who only really have a passing interest in it who don't want to necessarily study it in depth but want to know why all of this crazy shit is happening. So we'd have the full version that goes through the entire grid in depth and all the rules we've all found, explains the tree, explains everything you're talking about and that we've already discussed, and then we'd have a shorter version that was far more easy to digest and was more easily accessible that at least explained the concept that RSA was cracked based on mainstream mathematicians not actually knowing everything, and explaining as simply as possible the parts of the grid that are necessary to understand. They would be two different explanations is my point.
Baker and I have been sharing our Java code through pastebin and we haven't had any problems, even when we've been changing things in the background. Obviously if you're updating it a lot then you'd want to just have something automatically update rather than constantly pasting it into pastebin, but that's the choice you've got to make: anonymity or efficiency. I don't think I even need to say it, but I'd highly recommend anonymity.
The difference between you and us is that we used the same file for each test case and just deleted things that didn't work. Every time I make a different bitmap or something like that I'm just changing the one Java file's grid generation if statement and file path. Are all of these files useful at this point? Or is it a big proportion? I guess if you had to you could use Mega or Dropbox or some other filesharing website.
I've personally been on imageboards since around 2010 or 2011, so I missed the best of it when they weren't infested with normalfags but I suppose I'm a lot more used to this than you are.
>how many have you had to weed out so far
I've only instated two bans on this board, but I think they were the same person. They spammed RSA general and another thread with shit about Chris being a liar and that the VQC isn't real and that kind of thing, obviously with no evidence.
>I understand the meaning of your idea tho, AA.
Well, I was actually just going along with Topol's joke, but yes, I do wholeheartedly agree. As tempting as it may be for any of us to claim that we were a part of this, whether for publicity or to imply we're better than everyone else, it defeats the whole purpose. This information has been hidden for so long, and the point is to make everyone aware of it. We're the channel through which it seems to be happening, but we're not the people who even figured it out ourselves. That would be Chris. If any of us tried to use this for some kind of social advantage, it would be so disingenuous. "Look at me, I payed attention to someone else who discovered these unknown mathematical properties and talked about them on 8chan all day". That's silly. And then obviously Chris seems to think the same way about himself in this context. At least based on what he's said so far about it, it seems he thinks it's far more important that this math becomes common knowledge than it is that he was the one who got it out there. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this company he wants to start, though. That might involve less anonymity, but he hasn't really said anything about it since, has he?
Before anyone complains that we're derailing the thread, I haven't figured anything new out that anyone else hasn't already figured out.
When we're at the point of factoring semiprimes it will have shown us new previously-not-talked-about mathematical principals, which have been implied can be used for practical, physical things, like a cold fusion generator/sonoluminescence, and then there's meant to be even more discoveries after that. It could lead to new technology nobody could even imagine right now. Imagine what the world would be like it we didn't have calculus or pi or anything like that. We use them to make physical things, so this is bound to cause some crazy innovative physical shit to happen, instead of just chaotic burn-everything-down shit.
Speaking of pi, I'm just remembering that Chris mentioned that you could use this to figure out infinite digits of pi without knowing where you were in the sequence, right? I'm pretty sure I remember him saying that. I was just reading that the probability of any two numbers being relatively prime is 6/(pi^2). Maybe that means since we're working with prime numbers now that it'll sort of just come up at some point. Or maybe it could be used to look for patterns.
I'm confused about how we're meant to represent the base of the eight triangles in terms of (x+n). This image >>4285 implies that these triangles have no equal sides, start from the corner, and, with a being the shortest side, b being the middle and c being the hypotenuse, (x+n) = a + b. This image >>4287 implies that they're isosceles triangles but that (x+n) = 2 * shorter side + 1. Do these two situations equal the same thing and it just hasn't clicked in my head yet, or is something wrong with one of them?
I'm kinda struggling to understand the latest crumbs. This is what I do understand:
>c is the difference of two squares, (d+n)(d+n) and (x+n)(x+n)
>you can figure out (x+n)(x+n) based on (x+n)'s parity
>you can figure out (x+n)'s parity based on c % 4
>when (x+n) is odd (or when any square is odd), you can represent it as 8 triangles + 1
>the base of each of the eight triangles is ((x+n)-1)/2
>this square of (x+n)(x+n) = 8Tu + 1
>if you figure out how to calculate the area of those triangles you win
>as per >>4305 you can find n even if you don't know x as long as you do know (x+n)
Here's where I get confused:
>here >>4322 he splits the triangles because (n-1)(n-1) is another odd square so you can use the same 8Tu + 1 rules on it
>that then has something to do with f
What are (n-1)(n-1) and f used for? I am lost at that point.
I'm a musician, but I doubt I could afford a trip to the US any time soon.
Don't you need a bunch of personal information to make a Twitter account? I know I couldn't make a throwaway account once because it needed a phone number. Plus it seems like some of the others who aren't here right now might understand, so rather than annoy him with a ton of questions it might be better if we all just get on the same page through the board.