AA !dTGY7OMD/g ID: 0cec15 July 27, 2018, 2:34 a.m. No.7033   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>7032

So I suppose this is why e and n are the axes, rather than any of the other two variables. They obviously weren't picked arbitrarily.

AA !dTGY7OMD/g ID: 0cec15 July 27, 2018, 3:36 a.m. No.7034   🗄️.is 🔗kun

At risk of pointing out things we already know again, I'll begin posting any diagonal patterns I notice while the rest of you are still asleep (or until I go to sleep).

 

First one is the relationship between d and f when moving diagonally. When you increase e and n by 1, at the same t, the increase in f is equal to 2*(the increase in d)+1.

Examples:

(19,14,41) = {19:14:316:81:235:425} f=-614

(20,15,41) = {20:15:294:80:214:404} f=-569

d decreases by 22, f increases by 45 (22*2 + 1).

 

(19,14,6) = {19:14:16:11:5:55} f = -14

(20,15,6) = {20:15:14:10:4:54} f = -9

d decreases by 2, f increases by 5 (2*2 + 1).

 

(60,40,56) = {60:40:262:110:152:452} f = -465

(61,41,56) = {61:41:262:111:151:455} f = -464

d stays the same, f increases by 1 (0*2 + 1).

AA !dTGY7OMD/g ID: 0cec15 July 27, 2018, 3:46 a.m. No.7035   🗄️.is 🔗kun

When you decrease e by 1 but increase n by 1, the increase in f is equal to 2d-1.

Examples:

(83,42,43) = {83:42:172:85:87:341} f = -262

(82,43,43) = {82:43:167:84:83:337} f = -253

d decreases by 5, f increases by 9 (2*5 – 1).

 

(75,34,93) = {76:34:683:184:499:935} f = -1291

(75,35,93) = {75:35:675:185:490:930} f = -1276

d decreases by 8, f increases by 15 (2*8 – 1).

 

(61,23,40) = {61:23:216:79:137:341} f = -372

(60,24,40) = {60:24:206:78:128:332} f = -353

d decreases by 10, f increases by 19 (2*10 – 1).

AA !dTGY7OMD/g ID: 0cec15 Sept. 4, 2018, 10:59 p.m. No.7478   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7495

Hang on a minute. The x and t values in the an and a(n-1) cells are the same as the x and t values in the prime solution. VQC has said a few times that we're meant to find the x or t value of the an cell, which implies that we'd then factor an to find the solution. If we're meant to find that cell based on its x or t value, we can completely bypass it and use the x or t value to find the prime solution without needing to factor an. That renders row 1 meaningless, if x or t are the values we're looking for. So that can't be right.