I think it was because of the changes to the board last night. I suddenly couldn't see all my latest posts, the last post was yours >>7661
I've been looking a bit more into movements. One thing I noticed was cells at (e + nn, n). In those records the d-values will be equal to the a-values in (e, n) and the x-values will be equal to (x + n) while the a's (and thus b's) will be equal to (d + n) values.
Since we don't know n, this isn't usable, but I've been thinking more about the fractal nature VQC has been talking about. I'm wondering if we should be trying to draw some figures that attempt to match up with what our fractal actually looks likes.
Having said that, anyone actually looked into the mandlebrot set? I was reading up on it (Only quickly between breaks), but the damn thing is screaming VQC. f_c(z) = z^2 + c. That's pretty much what we're doing, except instead of dealing with complex numbers or float numbers we're working with integers.
I've been thinking that we will either extend the grid (to support float / complex numbers) or there is a deeper connection (Is our fractal of mandlebrot nature?).
So we have (e * nn, n) and (e + nn, n), both of which extend or transform the records in some way.
(e * nn, n) will extend the sequence (Essentially increase the number of sequences in our row) while (e + nn, n) will transform / modify our row by exchanging values of d, x and a with other values. I'm going to try and think more about what this actually means and try and formulate a better description of what actually is happening. I'm struggling a bit with visualizing what I'm doing, so I would like to try and step back a bit to get a better understanding of why (e + nn, n) and (e * nn, n) works the way they do.
As for (e * nn, n) we will see repetitions of (1, 1) in every (nn, n) as 1 * nn = nn, meanwhile this explains the repetitions of (0, 1) in (0, nn).
Regarding the fractal / mandelbrot idea I'm wondering if that's actually our fractal. As in, (0, 1) or (1, 1) is the "base" mandelbrot set, as in the grand picture and why VQC has been telling us to use bigger numbers. Because by doing so we'll start seeing the repeated numbers.
I'm just spitballing, so I'm probably way off, but I can't help but shake the fact that our equation for c (d^2 + e) is exactly the same as the one for mandelbrot (z^2 + c).
In the mandelbrot set you have a term called "escaping" in which a point that is "escaping" means that the point is not within the boundaries of the fractal (If I grasped it correctly). I wonder if prime numbers are the ones that "escape".