>>8689

Now I'm wondering if you used c=145 as an example because it's somehow (Not sure yet!) easier to see the non-trivial lookup.

>>8705

I think it's a bit about how you talk to him. He hasn't given it away yet, and it's kind of like opening pandoras box. Sure, he could give away the solution, but he can't take it back. Once it's out there, it's out there. It's something he has dedicated YEARS to solve. So far we're only up to 1 year. I have faith.

>>8704

I trailed off a bit. But say we know (x+n) for ANOTHER cell, related, but not specifically our cell. How would you work on that? If you know x+n for some record in column e, can you work backwards? Even if you don't know the individual variables (x or n, just the sum)?

>>8710

I think I'm an idiot who trailed off, eating his own tail for no reason.

>>8721

When is tonight?

VQC, I'm wondering a bit.

I suspected for a while that you have been, on purpose, giving us hints to all of the three keys instead of just one. Is this actually correct?

>>8772

Why are we using alternating primes, though?

How many different people are still here? Are we VQC + 12 people? 12 lost sheep trying to understand that one guy and what he brings to the table?

>>8797

Anyone over 30 with 12 close friends is Jesus 2.0

>>8772

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. What are you actually doing here? You're just validating the record for a=1, b=c? You could do that with almost any number multiplied by c, as long as it's not = 2 (mod 4).