Jump to content

Simple yet interesting.

Rate this topic


Trurl

Recommended Posts

Yes, it does not look good for the Pappy Craylar Conjecture. But let's hope it has potential like the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers has offensive weapons, but can't produce offense. The PCC cannot be solved by solving for x only knowing N. But if you place it into a plot it may prove useful.

I am still working on the challenge. I want a usable process that will find x fast and accurately. This is what I have. But I can't get the loop to work yet. It is a Hail Mary for the PCC.

 

clear [i, pnp]

 

pnp= 2564855351

 

 

i=3; while[ ((((pnp^2/i + i^2) / pnp * i) – (i^3/pnp)) << pnp, Print; i=i+2]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/28/2022 at 4:55 PM, Trurl said:

I can't get the loop to work yet

You could try to have matching parentheses? There seems to be unbalanced "(" and ")" in the statement:

  On 10/28/2022 at 4:55 PM, Trurl said:

i=3; while[ ((((pnp^2/i + i^2) / pnp * i) – (i^3/pnp)) << pnp, Print; i=i+2]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be taking a break after a weekend crunching numbers. I don’t know if it is the Pappy Craylar Conjecture’s fault. I thought finding lines that intersect would be easier. Go figure.

 

I graphed xthefactor = x, in the first graph.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=plot\(40)Cbrt[Divide[\(40)Power[x%2C3]+Power[2564855351%2C2]\(41)%2C\(40)+Power[2564855351%2C2]%2Bx\(41)]%2BDivide[Power[x%2C4]%2CPower[2564855351%2C2]+%2Bx]]\(44)+Sqrt[\(40)Divide[\(40)Power[x%2C2]*+Power[2564855351%2C2]\(41)%2C2564855351%2Bx]\(41)+]+%2B+\(40)Divide[Power[x%2C2]%2CPower[2564855351%2C2]%2Bx]+\(41)+from+0+to+50000\(41)

The second graph is N=N. Where x should be the factor at N for both plots. Here the PCC looks promising. I just don’t know of a way for the computer to give me the intercepts and the scale of the graph so I can read it.

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot((x*Sqrt[2564855351^3%2F(256485531*x^2%2Bx))]+%2B+x^4%2F(2564855351^2%2Bx))%2C+((2564855351^2%2Fx%2Bx^2)%2F2564855351*x-(x^3%2F2564855351))+from+0+to+50000

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 10/29/2022 at 10:46 PM, Trurl said:

I will be taking a break after a weekend crunching numbers. I don’t know if it is the Pappy Craylar Conjecture’s fault. I thought finding lines that intersect would be easier. Go figure.

 

Maybe it is a good thing that you begin to find out for our self that your ideas regarding factorisation of semiprimes does not work?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right I cannot factor a large Prime. But the fault is mine and not the Pappy Craylar Conjecture.

 

I don’t know of any math software that will let me find x on the graph while y equals N.

 

I believe the PCC is finding the factors, but for me it is impossible to find an answer on the scale of the graph. Do you know of any graphing programs. I could also fix the loop, but I don’t know the advantage of just looping the equation versus looping division.

 

You could guess at the position of x because the PCC equation would tell you if you were higher or lower than the correct value.

 

I found the error. So an N of 85 will occur where x equals 5, exactly with no error. But when you try and solve for x in the equation the square roots stop the equation from being solved.

 

But until I can say f[x} = N, where y = N. I cannot solve the graph without typing in the correct scale. And the scale is hard to find with several hundred digits N.

 

So RSA remains safe for now. I have put a lot of work into this problem. Good thing this isn’t my thesis or I’d fail. But I leave you with one more graph. That is 85 = 5*17:

 

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=plot((x*Sqrt[85^3%2F(85*x^2%2Bx))]+%2B+x^4%2F(85^2%2Bx))%2C+((85^2%2Fx%2Bx^2)%2F85*x-(x^3%2F85))+from+0+to+20

One more. I don't think it is the correct factors, but it was a true test of the PCC method.

 

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=((x*Sqrt[2564855351^3%2F(256485531*x^2%2Bx)]+%2B+x^4%2F(2564855351^2%2Bx))%3D%3D+((2564855351^2%2Fx%2Bx^2)%2F2564855351*x%2B(x^3%2F2564855351))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 11/1/2022 at 7:18 PM, Trurl said:

You are right I cannot factor a large Prime.

As expected your methods and ideas unfortunately failed the challenge. The ideas does not work at all, but it is good that you tested so that you see it for yourself.

 

  On 11/1/2022 at 7:18 PM, Trurl said:

So RSA remains safe for now.

That is good, those acknowledgements may be the first step. Maybe you begin to see where the real issue is? 

 

  On 11/1/2022 at 7:18 PM, Trurl said:

Do you know of any graphing programs.

Yes, as part of my profession I need to know several different programs, frameworks and programming languages. But the software is not relevant to your issues, do you begin to see why?

If you objectively analyse your issues and struggling and its connection to how RSA and similar encryption actually work I think the root cause of your problems will be obvious. I have already tried to explain (several times) but you may learn more from discovering it for yourself. 

 

  On 11/1/2022 at 7:18 PM, Trurl said:

But I leave you with one more graph. That is 85 = 5*17:

Sorry, I'm not interested in yet another repetition in those numbers. 

 

  On 11/1/2022 at 7:18 PM, Trurl said:

One more. I don't think it is the correct factors, but it was a true test of the PCC method.

I have no clue what that is supposed to mean. (Note: 256485531 is not a prime number and also not a semi prime)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 11/2/2022 at 5:32 AM, Ghideon said:

As expected your methods and ideas unfortunately failed the challenge. The ideas does not work at all, but it is good that you tested so that you see it for yourself.

Yes, most attempts at finding patterns in Primes fail. I gave it a solid effort.

The one thing that bothers me is that I only needed to know where y on the graph equals N.

If you plug in N and plug in the already known x it equals N. That is why I never gave up. I thought it would be easy to analyze the graph. I conclude here.

This is why I keep going.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=((41227*Sqrt[2564855351^3%2F(2564855351*41227^2%2B41227)]+%2B+41227^4%2F(2564855351^2%2B41227))

 

41227 is the only x that will produce N. As seen. I just wish there was a way to solve the equation for x for real numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The explanation is in clear text in your screen shot. Below it is highlighted for you. 

image.thumb.png.978457916bd938791b8c30eeb3edda05.png

So the links does not work; I do not know if they goes to a page displaying anything meaningful.

 

(Note: I have pointed out this several times in the past)

  On 5/16/2021 at 4:02 PM, Ghideon said:

One trouble is that the first one has unbalanced parentheses

 

  On 10/28/2022 at 5:14 PM, Ghideon said:

try to have matching parentheses

 

Note 2:Some links may give other errors such as this. image.thumb.png.8593872ef77d9b9661c15d96e8d57d8e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(x*Sqrt[2564855351^3/(2564855351*x^2+x)] + x^4/(2564855351^2+x)) - 2564855351), (x from 10000 to 52000)

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

plot( 2564855351-( Sqrt[(((((x^2 * 2564855351^4 +2* 2564855351*x^5) +x^8)/ 2564855351^4) – (1-x^2/ (2* 2564855351))) * ( 2564855351^2/x^2))] ),(from x= 10000 to 50000))

 

 

 

Paste these in Wolfram's Alpha computation bar. If it times out you need Pro.

 

This was my final attempt. That is why I stopped posting. The graph of these equations are in different windows. Alpha would not give me enough space to combine them. But x should be the factor where (if) they intersect between 1000 and 50000. I am working on a better presentation and file format. Alpha correct the parenthesis, so I didn't mess with it. I didn't want to break it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2129124262_ScreenShot2022-11-19at9_48_41PM.thumb.png.d0fe91eb3bb225ae76bf7f878ee050ba.png

 

 

 

Ok, so the work is over. But I have one question which is Did anyone find it useful? I know 2564855351 is easy to factor with computers. I take the values from 1 to zero from the right to left and test. A 10^9 is reduced to 10^4. I know it doesn’t seem useful. But I haven’t worked with hundreds of digits. The precision of the numbers close to zero (a pnp==pnp) is untested. My programming skills are terrible. But I see what the theme is: “If it does factor semiPrimes it is more than just theory. You should be able to produce the factors.” But it leads me back to the question is it useful? When I thought it up I thought it was gold dust. I cannot factor very well with it. But I am a terrible programmer. I have read about the discovery of determining how many Prime numbers there are under a given number. The thought is that it would lead to a pattern. It never did. However, it led to patterns of series that produced large Prime numbers. I’m not saying the Pappy Craylar Conjecture finds a pattern in Prime numbers, but it is a simple method of predicting factors, approximated (where the graph is between zero and one.

 

Well, it is on to other projects for me. I posted so much because I believed in my hypothesis. I leave you with my corrected equations screenshot. But if anyone does find a use for the PCC: Post it here!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Where x * y = pop

When y = Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*x^2+x)]

So that, x* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*x^2+x)] = pnp

 

pnp – pnp = 0

 

 

Let x equal any Prime number. 5 for instance.

Graph x = 5 at x on the graph at that instance = pop

So where 5* Sqrt[pnp^3/(pnp*5^2+5)] – pnp = 0, then pnp is a semiPrime and we can plug it into the equation and find y (the larger Prime number). 

 

And if we continue to graph over all real numbers we will find every Prime number in existence.

 

This is my programming challenge to you.  Remember the math does not have to work to complete the challenge. The challenge is to see how fast you can prove it wrong or correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3rd Challenge: Graphical Representation:

 

I have claimed that a logarithmic spiral could be drawn to show a pattern in Prime numbers. It is easy to claim but hard to draw. Here I challenge you to draw a logarithmic spiral that explains the last post’s graph of PNP and where it equals zero.

 

But what is the previous post finding a semiprime where the graph equals zero, there was a modified sine wave that explained the graph? So, you have numbers at PNP at zero with x and y (the Prime factors), with the sine curve osculating above and below zero. And the sine curve at the same time is experiencing resonance. Growing larger in magnitude as the value of PNP increases. Could not a logarithmic spiral explain this? And couldn’t a differential equation explain this resonance like a differential equation explains resonance on a spring?

 

And if you put the graph in 3D, does it make a helix? And could it be useful to define changes in helix such as those that describe DNA. Obviously, that is wishful thinking but new ideas bread new ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×