>>5335

>So neither of you are concerned that we're having non-public discussion about this?

I appreciate your concern. But our individual work and effort is all private until we choose to publish here. Which I will continue to do because I believe in the importance of this project and I want us all to succeed together. This knowledge is too profound to be kept in the dark.

And if I get stuck in my thinking and am able to reach out directly to a fellow anon on an anonymous chat platform for a quick question, why wouldn’t I take advantage of that to try and speed up this process?

>>5400

Welcome back.

Really missed you!

Excited to move forward.

>>5475

Thanks for sharing.

>>5584

I’m thinking about it from the other direction. (x+n-1)/2 gets us close to the end range. Not quite exactly there, but might be enough to speed iteration.

And as x+n grows, the n jumps become even larger.

>>5586

Not quite yet. Just noticed and started thinking about it.

The alternative is to try and determine the minimum possible x value.

Might be 2 sides of the same problem.

>>5586

One thing is certain, though. There is definitely a range of valid n values for a given x+n.