Anonymous ID: 8f99ff July 24, 2019, 11:02 a.m. No.9867   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9869

>>9861

If you could help with some hints there are two I'm wondering about.

 

What has a[p + 1 - t] have to do with the solution (or a solution?) and the other hint about

 

at the correct a[t], d[t] - d = a(n-1). How would those fit in with a solution?

Name ID: 8f99ff July 26, 2019, 1 a.m. No.9921   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9922

>>9920

This is my take on it too. Which then complements >>9881. We can use superpositions because they are the same object, just from different perspectives.

 

We're only given one perspective and what we're trying to do is to warp it to an equal, but different perspective so we can see the the whole object.

Name ID: 8f99ff July 26, 2019, 1:25 a.m. No.9922   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9925

>>9920

>>9921

If you think of it in terms of complex numbers, then we can think of it as we're missing the lateral piece (also known as the imaginary part).

 

If you think of d+n as the real part and x+n as the lateral part, then our c is missing a piece. Take ((d+n) + (x+n)i)*( (d+n) + (x+n)i) and you will get c + lateral i. But our starting point is just c. We're missing the lateral part of our number, meaning we only hold a piece of the information. By finding d+n, x+n we have enough information to recreate the lateral part.

 

I thought it might be something like the above a while ago and did some naive testing. The only complex square roots of c + ki (for some k 0) are …. (d+n) + (x+n)i (with non-exhausting testing so I might wrong).

 

For a c with more than two factors we will have multiple valid (d+n, x+n) pairs. One for each factor (including 1, c).

Anonymous ID: 8f99ff July 30, 2019, 8:44 a.m. No.9968   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9969

>>9801

Was there ever an underlying pattern in the triangles? Like a specific tiling pattern, or a system for organizing the parts of the different values we had?

Anonymous ID: 8f99ff July 31, 2019, 2:11 a.m. No.9984   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0006 >>9985

>>9973

>>9971

Image 1 in the first post and image 2 in the second both appears to use the same c as an example.

 

I suppose this is because in both examples different initial estimations were used and adjusted for, meaning two different paths to the same number was taken.

Anonymous ID: 8f99ff July 31, 2019, 3:37 a.m. No.9985   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9986

>>9984

Just in case anyone wonders, the first starts with estimates from (e, 1) and the second (-f, 1). I'm trying to work my way through these examples, but I'm not entirely sure I know what the hell I'm doing. Trying to think a bit.

Anonymous ID: 8f99ff July 31, 2019, 7:46 a.m. No.9987   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9988

>>9971

I think your calculator is malfunctioning. In your conversion from the squares to the grid, c1 doesn't look correct.

 

Shouldn't it be: {-3734:-25:43:72:-29:65}?