Working on what VQC said he was going to explain to us seemed to be enough for him to taunt us with his presence yesterday, so I'll continue.

>>6774

>Then we will look at the key that is made by column -f with the locations of c in (-f,1)

I'll start with the same two examples from my last posts, c=203 (729) and c=559 (1343). I'll just do the first in this post and probably do the other in the next post.

c=203, d=14, e=7, f=-22

Relevant n=1 records are (7,1) and (-22,1).

559 doesn't seem to come up as a, b or d in (-22,1), nor does it appear to come from some kind of equation between different variables. So I thought the only way I would see it explicitly come up was by extending the records until x=203 or t=203. x is always even for (-22, 1), so c only appears in relation to x as x+n or x-n (since n=1).

(-22, 1, 101) = {-22:1:20593:202:20391:20797} f=41163

(-22, 1, 102) = {-22:1:21001:204:20797:21207} f=41979

Blindly looking for c here, the difference between d values here is 408, which is (203+1)2, the difference between a values is 406, which is just 2032, and the difference in f values here is 816, which is (203+1)*4. So I guess you can technically find c here, when x is adjacent to c.

The only other way you can explicitly find c in (-f,1) is when t=c.

(-22, 1, 203) = {-22:1:82813:406:82407:83221} f=165603

Here also, we have 406 pop up again, which is 203*2.

So, yeah, c does kinda come up in (-f,1), as 2c when you make t=c. I'll have to see about the other one. I also don't see how this could be useful at all, but he mentioned it, so I guess I'll keep looking.

>>6942

So then for c=559 (13*43), d=23, e=30, f=-17.

Again, 559 doesn't appear as an a, b or d value, nor as an equation of the variables (that I can find). a, b and d stay the same parity, too, so considering 559 is odd, which through addition or subtraction would change the parity of an incrementing number, it isn't going to appear as the gap between successive values either. So, I'll do the same thing: x=c, t=c. x is odd this time, so 559 does appear as an x value.

x=c

(-17, 1, 280) = {-17:1:156791:559:156232:157352} f=313564

The gap between a and b here is 1120, which is (559+1)*2. I can't really see anywhere else that I could get 559 from this record.

t=c

(-17, 1, 559) = {-17:1:624953:1117:623638:626072} f=1249888

The only thing close to being c here is 1117, which is actually one less than 559*2. But that isn't consistent with the other example in my previous post.

In conclusion, I have no idea what VQC was talking about when he said

>Then we will look at the key that is made by column -f with the locations of c in (-f,1)

because the only definite location of c in (-f,1) is when t=c, and the relationship between the variables at that record and our c is inconsistent.