>>4206

Thanks MA! SpaceX "launch" in studio? LOL, no moon landing either. Chris, please give us some Agartha crumbs? Come on, VQC your disciples are bored and stuck.

"LORD OF MATH ROCK, BLESS US WITH YOUR MIGHTY PRESENCE."

Overton window expand? VQC is just a normal Anon like us who also is also the KING FAGGOT MATH GENIUS. Hanging out with us and teaching us cool ass math. To help save the world. To expand our minds. To teach us the underlying nature of numbers that all have missed. UNTIL NOW. Time for a Revolution of consciousness and understanding. We're part of it, Anons. We're doing our part to better the world even working right here.

>>4302

>This

I posted two things: Which "This"? The diagram? Or the new formula?

"So for this portion: 2d(n-1) + f - 1 = 2xn + xx"

Teach already had posted his great diagram of squares, which mine was a slight variant of. What about this equation, lads?

We're getting pretty close to tying d,f,e to (x+n). Thinking out loud over here.

>>4526

>>4343

Here you go Baker! I'm still working to understand.

Got a reply from VQC on twatter. Here it is:

>>4592

>>4513

"That's Two Keks! I've been counting!

>>4658

Go MM!! Even better diagram. I don't think it goes into the center square. Then you can't divide by 8.

>>4660

Lol, step it up VA! Misread your question MM. On it now.

>Perhaps it should be going to the Inside of n0 square, bottom left corner?

That's the geometrically correct config for an odd (x+n) square.

>>4715

Thanks MA! Saved! Nice to have a formula recap. Let's add in the new equations too. I'll get to work compiling to add on.

>>4668

>>4682

>>4680

>Those who are good with their grid diagrams, can you show any examples of how all the pieces fit together for smaller examples with the triangles?

>The only piece missing before is the left hand big square with the pieces added to the side.

>Should make for a good diagram. Particularly with respect to the contribution of 2d(n-1) and how the symmetry of that looks.

Alright diagram Anons, let's work.

Hey lads! Just trying to get to the bottom of this. Going to bed, but got a last response from Chris. Here it is. Be back tomorrow!

>>4817

Chris' Twitter is gone for the time being. Poof! Not sure if you guys have been following the #TwitterLockOut, but it's a mass censorship effort by @jack. Q posted about it yesterday. Pics related.

>>4818

Hey PMA! Thanks for all your new work. So we are still working to find a way to use triangle geometry to iterate and find the multiples that give us (x+n).

Starting from c, we get d,e,f. Then we break down f to find n0. I'm stuck at this point.

Do we use n0 = (f-2)/8 and (f-2) mod 8? Do we have a use for the remainders yet?

Do we use n0 = (f-2)/40 and (f-2) mod 40? Remainder purpose/use?

After choosing one of these to divide f, we then use that choice to make the triangle bigger using multiples of n0 and 2d. We could also visualize this in square (x+n) form too. Combo of n0 (factor of n) + 2d (factor of x? d-x=a.)

Then we have this part >>4636 I'm still working on. Have you guys figured more of this part out yet?

Also, we can solve for n in (1,c) and complete that element right off the bat. Does that help us in any way as far as limiting our search or iteration parameters, especially with PMA's new findings? GAH! Lots of questions, any help appreciated.

>>4920

The quick (log n) part is all we have to do is check: True or False for each iteration, comparing it against the difference of squares equation.

>>4930

Sure MM! Here we go.

>n0*2 = 6 (no match)

Here are the calcs to show (no match) for n0*2

TuXPN = 6

n = SQRT(c + (TuXPN)^2) - d

n = SQRT(259 + (6)^2) - 16 = 1.175 = n

n is not a whole integer for our first clue. now we plug n into the difference of squares equation.

c = (d+n)^2 - (x+n)^2

259 = (16 + 1.175)^2 - (6)^2 = 258 with remainder. (no match) but very close though! So we know (x+n) is bigger than (x+n)=6

>>4936

Hello PMA! I think I've found a way to use the RSA#2 quadratics we built around (2t)^2 = small square to cross check our iterations. It would effectively give us a way to tell if a (x+n) iteration is smaller or larger than our target c value.

>>4988

SpiritFags, you know what's up.

4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone—

What are the underlying forms and number trees of the universe?

PMA, we love you man. Just keep up the good work! Here's a good video for tonight.

https:// youtu.be/xFntFdEGgws