My enthusiasm melted your tripcode forcefield. ;)
Checked! Nice Quads you got there!
>Before anyone complains that we're derailing the thread, I haven't figured anything new out that anyone else hasn't already figured out.
Yeah, let's get to work! I'll look over all the new crumbs again.
Yeah Hobo! I can't think of any faggots I'd rather go camping with. I love hiking too. Also, a cold beer and a stogie at the end of a camping day is delicious. Then camp dinner. Then playing guitars around the campfire. Then Topol shows up for the Grade A Bakening. Then we all trip out about the universe. Talk about cool shit and expand our minds for a couple weeks. Then go back to the "normal world" better than when we left it. Camping is the SHIT.
Did you see VQCs crumb about the thickness of n0=5? Like it’s not just the base, it’s a width or measurement. How the heck did he figure that out? Then he gave a calculation for BOTH the base and top line of the f-2 section. I have indigestion from these latest crumbs, need some Tums. Away from home base, I’ll post the link when I get back. Just can’t help checking in, even at work.
Hey PMA! Here's the correct link
>>4344 Diagram here.
>In this diagram, somewhere in each triangle, there is a part that is five units wide, that we hope is smaller than (x+n) and larger than n.
>The middle of each blue bar is (f-2) div 40, so the base of a triangle with that bar would be ((f-2) div 40) + 2, the top of that bar would be ((f-2) div 40) - 2. The five parts together add up to (f-2) div 40.
>Plus the remainder of 4 unit squares from (f-2) mod 40.
"The five parts together add up to (f-2) div 40"
"base of that bar would be ((f-2) div 40) + 2"
"top of that bar would be ((f-2) div 40) - 2"
Attached are my annotations on VQC's diagram. Thoughts?
Took our mutual question to Chris, here's what I have so far. Waiting for response on the last part.
>>4928 big jumps, then smaller jumps, PMA.
>>4931 many ways, MA!
>>4932 beautiful mind, indeed MM.
The cool thing is, Anons, that there is more than one way to solve the problem. All our efforts combine to form like Voltron.
>John Nash developed an equilibrium concept for non-cooperative games that later came to be called the "Nash Equilibrium". He proved that in any game where a finite number of players each has a finite number of choices, there is at least one position from which no single player alone can improve his/her position by changing strategy.
>I think that sums it up well for us on this board, and the work anons are doing with Q as well.
Well said, MM. We are all working different angles to solve the same problem in the most efficient manner. It's pretty badass. It's a summary of why individual freedom benefits all of human society.
>Well said, MM.
Bad editing over here, lol! Here's a meme for all you beautiful faggots.
It never goes negative, bc it approaches the mountaintop. When (x+n) is too big, it goes back down away from c as (x+n) grows larger relative to (d+n). When it is a perfect match, it's at the exact top of the mountain or triangle.
Hello Lads. Thinking about (x+n) square growth over here. Nothing to report yet, just checking in.
MVP PMA says back to work!! Alright, man, geez. I'll begin studying your new ideas now. I have one thought:
P = NP revolutionizes everything. The end goal is so fabulous I can keep going forever. VQC said "new math Kangz" for when we solve this.
TFW You're searching for the underlying order of the universe!