I don't see anything personally. Anyone?
Assuming you keep posting despite >>9489, I can't think of any ways that factoring e would be obviously relevant, but any number can take a square out of (0,n) if it doesn't produce a square with c. I don't know that we ever found a pattern of numbers that put c into (0,n) other than c itself, so we never directly figured out ourselves what v could be other than for it to potentially just be qc multiplying qc.
Considering the vast majority of people in the world have a "her" in their lives and drink coffee, if this is meant to be a threat it isn't a very convincing one (not that I'm encouraging you though).
Well if you want to make the most of it, you've got several currently-not-posting anons keeping track.
Well if you'd like to go over those details…
That's vague enough that I don't really know what else to ask about it. I'm trying to come up with the most useful questions I can, but if you'd like to lead this or if I should just keep asking questions, either way is fine.
It may be more detailed than just "primes can only be multiplied into squares with themselves" if you're talking about using the grid, but it would definitely appear that at least up to a couple thousand (I did more testing after this screenshot), primes can only create squares through multiplication with one other number if that number is themselves. So that would also imply that v for any composite number also can't be prime. v has to be composite to some degree.
This post appears to imply that v will always be <=c (or I'm assuming qc). I wrote some code to show all the possible v values for a given c. This is kinda weird. For semiprimes, based on about 50 or so tests, it seems that the only time v is ever not just qc, either a or b is one of those numbers that ends up as part of q (so primes that end in 01 in binary), the other shows up as a factor of v, and the number of possible v values is equal to that first variable. Every other semiprime can only produce a square when multiplied by itself (at least from my testing). There is a lot more for us to learn about v, and I'm starting to think the actual method of finding the variable v is itself a non-trivial calculation, even before we get to whatever we end up using it for and whatever X and Y are and everything.
When we find the elements d is between in (e,1), what asymmetry are we meant to be looking at? There's asymmetry in the distance between the lower element and d and between the higher element and d. There's also asymmetry between the elements d is between in (e,1) and the elements d is between in (f,1).
Is what you said in >>9222 still true? Is some aspect of it still "protected" and you don't intend to make it public yourself personally yet (you are still avoiding telling us what X and Y are and how to find v, so it does still seem like you're keeping important information from us), or is it the time and you're here to "accelerate" in the sense that you're releasing it now (you said you "believe anons are ready" in the second post >>9484 here, and obviously you gave us quite a bit yesterday)? Are all of these posts directly preceding disclosure or are they just intended to be further clues?
Our knowns are c, d, e and f. There are a bunch of different cells and elements that we can find from these (such as all the things in (e,1) and (f,1), like where d is between d[t] or where a[t]=BigN etc). One or several of those would have to be the starting point I would think. There's been a lot of talk recently about d between d[t] in (e,1) being where the magic happens, but not a lot of talk about what magic is actually happening. And every few months we have a different concept that we're led to believe is the one we're meant to use to solve (whether it's qc, or something about the asymmetry between (e,1) and (f,1)'s na and nb elements, or the triangles that make up (x+n)(x+n), etc).
The short version is, while I think the way the solution works is that we start from knowns, apply some known concepts and some unknown concepts and eventually end up at the solution, I don't think any of us know enough that we could get any more specific than that.
What about it? c between i[t] (if that's what you meant) is another one of those concepts that we know how to find the elements for, and it does help to occasionally find i or j, even though it doesn't scale. It very well could be a starting point in conjunction with d between d[t] (like you (or someone, it's hard to keep track) suggested), but so could any number of concepts. Like I said, every few months we're told to start from somewhere else.
Okay, here's one. Chris brought up two concepts around the same time a few months ago and seemed to imply they were related but never actually linked them. These were qc (multiplying c by a bunch of low known primes to increase the frequency of factors showing up in (e',1) and (f',1)) and finding where a[t]=c (which for t=1 is (2c,1,1) and (2c-1,1,1), and then t=2 is further back and so on). Is there a link between those concepts?
Yeah see this doesn't make it any easier to understand
>Apply to D, D2 scale search space estimate.
This line is vague. Are we looking for sqrt(d) and sqrt(i) between d[t] in (e,1) and (f,1)? Are we using the already-calculated D/D2/C/C2 and fitting sqrt(d) and sqrt(i) into it somehow?
So you aren't going to clarify?