>>9494

Let's see if my mind is going the right place. For some numbers, you may have a v that is < c, which can be used to substitute c. The end result would still be a factor for c. But this isn't always the case, sometimes v = c (because no substitute exists)?

>>9508

Why doesn't (3, 1) give us the same "power" to create a superposition for c?

>>9545

t's being the smallest t possible when recursing down the triangles?

>>9554

The c = x+n element is in many ways beautiful. If you think of it in terms of complex numbers that cell kind just, clicks. d+n being the lateral part while x+n is the number. But it's not enough to go on alone. You need other parts, which I haven't solved yet.

>>9570

Capital T being the big T, the t from the na transform for bigN and c?

>>9539

>d[t] around d is an incomplete measurement of the superposition. Fine-tune the superposition and measure again (C). What’s more precise than C?

Fine tuning by either following the d[t]'s into the new e's or by modifying c to "match" (or get a closer match) of the d[t]'s.

>>9583

Isn't x=d+1 equal to the shadow big N?

I suppose it's kind of wasteful(?) or pointless(?) to share this now, but are you guys familiar with Rascals Triangle?

It has some interesting key properties that relate to the grid, columns and e-values a number exist in. I came over it by happenstance when looking into patterns of e's for numbers in different columns.

You know Pascal's triangle, it goes like this:

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 3 1

1 4 6 4 1

…

Rascal's triangle was "discovered" (created?) by three kids when given an "IQ" test. It went like this:

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 3 1

— What is the next number in the sequence

They didn't write 1 4 6 4 1, like you would assume based on Pascal's triangle, instead they wrote

1 4 5 4 1

When you look at Pascals triangle (and Rascals triangle) you can group 4 numbers in a diamond shape. So for:

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 3 1

1 4 5 4 1

A diamond shape here would be

2

1 3

4

You can divide the diamond shape into quadrants: North, East, West and South.

The pattern is:

South = ((East * West) + 1) / North

Pretty sweet, right? But how does it relate to the grid? It turns out that several rows in the rascals triangle is equal to the e's a number at a[t] exists in.

Given:

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 3 1

1 4 5 4 1

1 5 7 7 5 1

1 6 9 10 9 6 1

The a[2] in (1, 1) exists at e's = 1, 6 and 9 and is equal to the last line (row 7). a[3] in (1, 1) exists in e's: 1, 10, 17, 22 and 25 which is equal to the 11th row in the Rascal's triangle. It continues like this, matching the e's a number exist in with the triangle.

The formula for calculating the triangle is:

k * (n - k) + 1

Here the 1 is equal to the base or column. Swapping it with any other number and it generates the same triangle except for that column. Think of the above triangle as the e-index(?) for (1, 1).

I know this isn't much and with the guy who knows and understands the grid here, it feels like it falls quite flat. Either way, I wanted to share with you guys.

Last week I had some major hd problems. Essentially I had literally a crash in my drive and I lost all my work. It sucks, and I tried to recover it, but unfortunately I couldn't. Instead I've been rewriting my work and getting back up there. My fault for not backing up and getting a more modern drive I suppose.

Some of the last stuff I found was some patterns relating to quantum angular momentum and column (0, 1), (1, 1) and (2, 1). It was related to a few quantum angular momentum matrices (but I have no clue about that stuff, at least not yet). I also don't remember the details, but it was related to the patterns from the Rascal triangle.

>>9585

Right, so the formula is k * (n - k) + 1, but the pseudocode would be:

for n in range(1, limit) (for some limit)

for k in range(0, n) (0 <= k <= n)

value = k(n - k) + column

The n represents row, while k would be the column within that row.

>>9590

Right off the bat I'm thinking the n from the element for a=1, b=c appears to fit the bill. Although I only did some naive testing.

>>9592

(Including shadow n)

>>9593

(and I wonder then if this also applies to the nb transform for a=1, b=c)

Note though:

> Isn’t there a cell that can be created using c where the first existing column will be one of its factors?

I didn't read that as explicit a factor of c, but rather a factor of the cell you can create from c.

>>9591

Oh.. d - 1

>>9596

I might be off here, but take an even d and look at (a, 1, x=d-1). It will match the big n and shadow big n (with offsets).

Just another thing I just noticed, something I haven't seen before.

Take an element a, b with an even n. Compute the na transform and then compute the element for a=1, b=na/2. What is the e here? Works for big N (and shadow n's) as well.

>>9599

Hmm.. Looks like there are some offsets required here too in some cases.

Offsets are a funny thing, we see them so many times. Over and over again something holds for a set of elements, but for others you need the offset.

Since we now have someone here who understands and knows the grid, could you give some kind of intuition or understanding of these offsets?