While I have no idea what to do with the current clues right now, if we've gone from warm to hot with this latest cryptic clue, now might be a good time to summarize what we've done over the last week or so. Below I've listed each concept we've gone over, what we do know, and what we don't know. The don't know part isn't done out of cynicism, just in case it comes across that way. I just think it's useful to know what we haven't learned yet along with what we have, to potentially add a sense of direction to the hints.

>there are horizontal families, and there are squares and triangles in the family of c - don't know what that means or how to use it

>there are cells in (0,n) that make a superposition with X and Y - don't know what X and Y are or how to use superpositions

>there are various different superpositions (d between d[t], c between i[t], n=2, (0,e) and (0,f), (1,1), d between qc's (e',1), etc) which constrain values and limit search spaces - don't know what we're searching for or how to find them from within superpositions

>columns (0,n) and (-1,n) have some kind of relationship with coulombs, which potentially relate them to all of this talk about derivatives and rates of change - no idea how to use any of this or any of its relevance

>we can make the (2c,1,1) sequences have a decreasing b by starting at e=-2c and increasing |e|, and we can potentially use this to find qc from within the grid since one of the sequence multiplies c with primes ending in 01 in binary - I couldn't personally get the sequence to work although one of the others on Discord seems to have, and once we do generate it we don't know how to use qc yet since we don't know how to find v or what to do with vqc once we've found it

>there are recursive/fractal elements in the grid that relate to the tree in some way, (0, |d-e|) and (0, |d-|f||) - don't know what to do with these elements

>we can "square gap", or find further elements related to the d between d[t] elements, by finding the elements where x is equal to (or surrounding) the d values from the original elements, which is meant to have something to do with decreasing search space, and from which we're possibly meant to find squares that we "decompose" into ts - don't know what to do with them, don't know what values to find in what gaps, don't know what we're decomposing or how to do that, don't know what variables act as upper and lower bounds in a search space, and don't know what variables we might be searching for in said search space

>multiplying d by its factors (and possibly e too) can apparently help in the geometry of finding c - don't know how

>apparently recursively finding D and D2 for sqrt(d) and sqrt(i) is useful for reducing search space - don't know how it's useful, the sqrt(i) part is an unknown variable unless there's something we haven't noticed about it yet that makes it directly calculable

>several of these concepts are related to the tree somehow - don't know how they're related yet

If I've gotten any of this wrong or anyone understands any of this better than I do, please do say so.

>>9761

We do that in the tree with even d and e values, yeah.

>>9952

Wasn't useful.

>>9964

>>9962

If you take a[t]-a[t] from (e,1) and (f,1), you'll get a sequence starting from d and decreasing by 2 each time t increases by 1 (pic related - ignore the weird t values for the invalid elements at the start of the (f,1) sequence, the a and b values are what they should be). If you move e and f inwards by 2 each, you get the same sequence starting from d-2, and so on. In order to find a, n or the correct t, you'd have to iterate d/2 (which is more steps than GNFS). That's why it isn't useful.

>>9966

You don't know how many times you have to iterate. I meant that the search space is d/2, not that a is t+d from the start of the cells.

More /qresearch/ posts

>>9973

I cross-checked the i and j values in this sequence against all known variables for the c values at each level. It looks like the i estimate potentially comes from the previous c's D2_f i value (the one that's one off here might be a parity thing), unless that's a coincidence (this sequence is the same c as most of the others, so they're going to be different sequences with potentially different variables from different places used as the consequent i and j values, so we'd need more test data to know for sure). j seems more ambiguous though, since there's nothing unifying in the j values for each element in the sequence. What this seems to mean is that we don't have enough information just from the sequences that were posted on /qresearch/ yesterday. If we're meant to use the same variables each time, the "adjustments" seem to be on those variables, rather than the adjustments being the sequence of the variables themselves.