(3,2)

Remember, the appearances increase by powers of two.

>>8844

Why did you skip 17, 29 and 37?

>>8935

All mod d

>>8945

e = Offspring of David

d = Root of David

f = bright Morning Star

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Revelation 22:16

>>8947

Creator become creation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_learning_with_errors

Squares are always congruent to 0, 1, 4, 5, 9, or 16 mod 20

>>8569

Primorial — https://pastebin.com/86qhaYJK

>>9059

I'll bake next one

>>9058

Some data on the efficiency of my tweaks to this algorithm

It doesn't beat simply iterating t in (e,1) yet, but still a very interesting method

https://pastebin.com/HfWR8ncT

>>9079

I know, right? If only there was some way to scale it down while keeping its geometry.

>>9084

Please clarify the data in this picture, it's confusing what is what.

Benoit algorithm - search the remainder tree of qc-c for a square and use the first one you find as the column for a gcd match.

c455839

(e, 1): iterations = 38

(1, 1): iterations = 19

c5496811

(e, 1): iterations = 361

(4, 1): iterations = 166

c732010841

(e, 1): iterations = 4443

(4, 1): iterations = 486

c55790583229883

(e, 1): iterations = 15130

(4, 1): iterations = 3758

c89174913605831

(e, 1): iterations = 1841991

(9, 1): iterations = 395857

>>9090

c455839

squares found in qc tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4]

squares found in qc-c tree = [4, 4, 9]

c5496811

squares found in qc tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 25]

squares found in qc-c tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 16, 25, 25]

c732010841

squares found in qc tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 25]

squares found in qc-c tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 16, 25, 25, 25, 25, 36, 64, 2809]

c55790583229883

squares found in qc tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 25, 25, 36, 676]

squares found in qc-c tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 16, 25, 25, 25, 25, 36, 36, 64, 676, 2809]

c89174913605831

squares found in qc tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 25, 25, 36, 441, 676]

squares found in qc-c tree = squares found in tree = [4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 16, 25, 25, 25, 25, 36, 36, 64, 676, 2809]

cRSA100 roots found in tree = [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 26]

cRSA2048 roots found in tree = [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 29, 47 64, 65, 70]

The pattern of squares in the remainder tree is not a uniform pattern. Some squares are always skipped. Since the pattern of the squares in the remainder tree for qc is so similar for all of the first four examples, it may be a way to see how adding those factors to c affects the remainder tree.

gcd matches in each square - (amount of iterations = t-1)

c89174913605831

{4:1:139292225862:527810:139291698052:139292753674} (4, 1, 263906)

{9:1:313407112332:791715:313406320617:313407904049} (9, 1, 395858)

c732010841

{4:1:473366:972:472394:474340} (4, 1, 487)

{9:1:70638502:11885:70626617:70650389} (9, 1, 5943)

{64:1:7562192:3888:7558304:7566082} (64, 1, 1945)

{2809:1:28805454:7589:28797865:28813045} (2809, 1, 3795)

c263100319

{4:1:19625114:6264:19618850:19631380} (4, 1, 3133)

{9:1:93653302:13685:93639617:93666989} (9, 1, 6843)

{49:1:670506:1157:669349:671665} (49, 1, 579)

c12584567

{49:1:301253082:24545:301228537:301277629} (49, 1, 12273)

{9:1:9022756:4247:9018509:9027005} (9, 1, 2124)

{4:1:103636806:14396:103622410:103651204} (4, 1, 7199)

c9431047

{4:1:2560586:2262:2558324:2562850} (4, 1, 1132)

{9:1:5759622:3393:5756229:5763017} (9, 1, 1697)

{25:1:1513812:1739:1512073:1515553} (25, 1, 870)

{36:1:185458:608:184850:186068} (36, 1, 305)

Perhaps we should explore what determines where these gcd matches appear.

>>9105

I decided to make it check subsequent valid rows by running it recursively on a[t] and b[t] since those define what is valid below. There is no code yet to determine more precisely which element i must appear in, but I think there will be.

The way in which finding i[t] = i or the offset (can also be viewed as an n value) to add to i[t] to make i is the same thing as finding N-n in row one, since I-i = N-n.

Example: c100651

Checking D and D2 in our algorithm (the elements d is between) immediately finds the elements that i is between in i[t]

We are looking for i = 326

{162:1:301:20:281:323} (162, 1, 11) i - i[t] = 24

{162:1:345:22:323:369} (162, 1, 12) i[t] - i = 20

{-473:1:275:31:244:308} (-473, 1, 16) i - [t] = 50

{-473:1:341:33:308:376} (-473, 1, 17) i[t] - i = 16

Now our problem is determining what determines the offset of i to look at. Currently, the numbers that the algorithm factors (except for the ones it finds in the rows below) are the numbers where i appears as an exact match to i[t], so the i[t] <-i offset is 0.

(Iterating the gap with the knowledge in mind that I is the same parity as i might be worth looking at too!)

I (BigEye) always appears as an exact value of i[t]. Here is where it appears for the example:

{162:1:50325:316:50009:50643} (162, 1, 159)

{-473:1:50325:317:50008:50644} (-473, 1, 159)

Back to the i[t] gap elements.

If we factorize a and b (we can do it recursively if we perfect the algorithm, but an exponential algorithm to do it would be good enough proof of concept), we get the following columns as factors - [2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 9, 17, 19, 41, 61, 281]

At this point, we can look for two things as a way to calculate i. Either one of these columns will always be the solution column if we have successfully arrived at the place that i[t] is between, OR we can calculate the elements whose d values are closest to the i gap in each one and see which column produces the exact value of i.

The elements in our columns that have an i[t] match are:

{162:9:317:66:251:401} (162, 9, 34) i[t] = 326

{-473:8:318:67:251:401} (-473, 8, 34) i[t] = 326

{162:11:315:72:243:409} (162, 11, 37) i[t] = 326

{-473:10:315:73:242:408} (-473, 10, 37) i[t] = 325

{162:19:307:90:217:435} (162, 19, 46) i[t] = 326

{-473:18:307:91:216:434} (162, 18, 46) i[t] = 325

{162:281:45:42:3:649} (162, 281, 22) i[t] = 326

{-473:280:45:43:2:648} (-473, 280, 22) i[t] = 325

D = element above d in d[t]

D2 = element below d in d[t]

D_f = element above d in d[t] in -f

D_f2 = element below d in d[t] - in -f

j[D] = 21

j[D2] = 23

j[D_f] = 32

j[D_f2] = 34

i[162, 281, 22] = 326

i[-473, 280, 22] = 326

i[162, 369, -22] = 326

i[-473, 368, -21] = 325

>>9110

These four j values point us to t=21, t=23, t=32, and t=34.

j[162, 1, 21] = 41

j[-473, 1, 22] = 44

j[162, 1, 23] = 45

j[-473, 1, 24] = 48

j[162, 1, 32] = 63

j[-473, 1, 33] = 66

j[162, 1, 34] = 67

j[-473, 1, 35] = 70

The solution x for our example is 66, so it looks like the area where i is in the gap in row one determines where it appears in the rows below as well as has a path to calculating its exact value.

Some data

c16837

n is a divisor of 116

{196:2:129:16:113:149} (196, 2, 9)

c = 113 * 149

c10541

n is a divisor of 93

{137:3:102:19:83:127} (137, 3, 10)

c = 83 * 127

c27641

n is a divisor of 1555

{85:5:166:35:131:211} (85, 5, 18)

c = 131 * 211

c27661

n is a divisor of 417

{105:3:166:27:139:199} (105, 3, 14)

c = 139 * 199

c119

n is a divisor of 10

{19:2:10:3:7:17} (19, 2, 2)

c = 7 * 17

c3638604803

n is a divisor of 88466

{102403:142:60320:3987:56333:64591} (102403, 142, 1994)

c = 56333 * 64591

Factorization of numbers obtained by factorizing a and b of the records d is between

>>9112

Combining this approach with the current algorithm detailed allows it to factor another family of numbers. The algorithm above doesn't arrive at the factors of the last c example, but this one does.

>>9112

calculations = 6 btw

for 3638604803

I'm working on making the SeeIt (UnseeIt version 3) algorithm more precise, identifying what determines which element has i = i[t].

>>9181

Seconded

>>9190

I think a constant that ties things together would make a lot of sense. You've got your constants that tie everything together in the gravity equations, it's time for a constant that ties everything together in the RSA equations.

What if multiplying humbers with c to make qc is a process and not just a single multiplication? Ie we aren’t just looking at what qc makes, we have to look at what each prime one by one makes, and what is completed when q reaches the size of

>>9283

d

>>9365

Like what

>>9363

That should read “It won’t be immediate”

Is Matariki over yet?

>>9370

a=factor of d^2

b=facfor of d^2

in coulomb zero