It isn't a question of how many, it's a question of finding useful ones. gcd(d,e)>0 barely ever happens. |f|=(x+n)(x+n) barely ever happens. dd=c barely ever happens. This isn't a useful thought experiment when we don't know how to frame all of these patterns in a way that provides a solution.
We all died from multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the back of the head sorry, maybe next time
All right Chris, it's the start of Matariki in the place where Matariki is a thing. It is now the Maori New Year in the southern hemisphere, like you said. We all know how many times you've given us some date something's meant to happen on and nothing ends up happening. I don't know why you're doing it. You've probably got a perfectly good reason for doing it. All I know is, it is the most morale-crushing thing in the world. If you were testing our will, you've succeeded. Only four of us go on Discord all that much anymore, and this board is mostly dead. You had to be aware that telling us we don't have enough information to solve would completely halt our work. Given you've taken away a great deal of our incentive to do anything, and we're much less active, I think you'll also be well aware that if you don't follow through this time, it's only going to get even less active. So at least that makes it seem like you picked now to tell us we don't have enough information because you're actually going to go through with it this time. That would make a lot of sense. But, given your history with dates, it's hard to trust that anything will happen.
I'm not trying to change the timeline. My needs are irrelevant. I have to admit, I'd benefit substantially from it coming out now. I've been unemployed for a couple of months now and the job market where I live is terrible. So I have every reason and ability to sit here and work every waking moment trying to figure the grid out. But that's not why I'm typing this out. I could be homeless and suicidally depressed and still have no right to change anything about when this stuff gets publicly released. The only thing I'm asking is this: if you're going to follow through this time, that's absolutely wonderful and we will all be incredibly thankful for it, but if it isn't the right time, please, stop giving us these meaningless fucking dates. I'm not doubting any of the seriousness of the situation. If it became public 20 years from now I'd still be here. But this business with dates is just so unnecessary. If it isn't going to happen this time then just tell us what's going on.
Oh great, another person acting like they know. Look, if you're actually paying attention to us "being manipulated" (my perspective is that it isn't the right time, but obviously we aren't told everything), then you'll know that the whole deal is people dancing around the point and not delivering. So either tell us what you have to say or don't act like you're going to.
Well I'll have to assume it's a good idea to do this now if you're going to be vague about your position in all of this. There are a couple of us online at the moment so if you wanted to go ahead now would be a good time. By the way, when this thread fills up about 15 posts from now the next one is here >>9114
Wait there are two of you now?
So you were going to go through the whole solution like you said or were you intending to just post more hints? So far everything you've said either we already know or we didn't already know but we don't know what to do with it yet.
Are you going to get a little more coherent at some point? No offense, you're just kind of all over the place.
I'm going to go through my personal understanding of all these recent posts.
Everything in these posts is known. Every c in (0,n) is a square, so every element in any (0,n) cell with the same d will have the same c, hence the thing about subsequent factorizations. This gives us c, d, e and therefore f, but this still isn't enough to directly calculate each of the cells in (0,n) where c=cc (otherwise we could already calculate one of the cells other than cc=cc or cc=1cc for semiprimes etc). So this seems to be conceptual background information on another thing we're meant to do.
Who knows what (0,e) and (0,f) are for. I had a look but I didn't see anything. Also no mention of whether we're looking at (0,-f) or (0,|f|) (although probably more importantly we just don't have anything to do with them yet to begin with). So this is another cryptic hint.
This boils down to another hint, rather than an explanation, that there's some kind of link between the elements d is between in d[t] in row one and the factor elements in (0,n) for dd, that also somehow links to one of the unknown i values (possibly the one for a[t]=na given it's explained as "i[t]"). I had a look over a couple examples and couldn't find anything.|
So as it stands right now, we've been given a couple more cryptic hints. Hopefully you were planning to come back and continue at some point. I don't know what the other person was trying to say exactly but there was definitely some familiar terminology weaved around incoherent nonsense. Also
>just factorize c, it's so easy guys
Yeah thanks
Filling the thread
Bloop