Prime Diary

[christx11]

http://www.cx11.com/datastore/primediary_03.gif

 

[ark]

If you do not know it yet, please, take a look at the papers on prime numbers by my good friend (who also knows Laura), Marek Wolf:

http://www.ift.uni.wroc.pl/~mwolf/

 

[foofighter]

WOW! That was truly fascinating to read! I couldn't help but laugh and smile as I saw the patterns being described, and to then read the quotes about the chaos in primes... I'm very excited to see these conclusions!!!

Being a programmer, my first thought is: is there any way I can make some cool visualization of this? Have you done it already!? I want to "See" this, sort of like the crude number art you did above, but.. well, more!! Any ideas?

 

[name]

now, if i only could find out how to print that image to take it to bed and read in the quiet ...

as somebody who understands very little about math: is one of the implicaitons of that paper that PK crypto is unsound ?

 

[foofighter]

name, if I'm understanding this correctly (and I too am largely ignorant about math), unless I'm missing something, that would be correct(!!!). With the above theory in place there is an algorithm that can be used to generate primes, which is a first. Ever. The consequences for cryptography (i.e. making cryptography based on primes more or less obsolete) was one of my first thoughts too. The consequences for math in general are mindboggling!

I've gone through the C transcripts today, looking at the sessions dealing with primes (and as it happens, I was present at two of them), and it seems like the particular topic of primes and rings is of some importance. The discussions throughout the years are as follows:

95-11-11
A: As usual, we do not just give you the answers, we help you to teach yourself!! Now, take 11 and contemplate...
Q: (L) Well, three times eleven is thirty-three.
A: Yes, but what about 11?
Q: (L) Well, eleven is supposed to be one of the prime, or divine power numbers. In Kaballah, 11 is the power number...
A: Yes...
Q: (L) Eleven is 10 plus 1; it is divisible only by itself and by 1. I can't think of anything else. In numerology, I am a an 11 in numerology... I am also a 22. What else is there to the number 11?
A: Astrology.
Q: (L) Well, in astrology, the eleventh sign is Aquarius, my name is an eleven, my birthday is a 22 which is twice eleven, and I am an Aquarian. The eleventh house is friends, hopes, dreams and wishes, and also adopted children. Aquarius the Water bearer, the dispenser of knowledge. Does 11 have something to do with dispensing of knowledge?
A: Now, 3rd house.
Q: (L) Gemini. Okay. Gemini and Aquarius. Third house is how the mind works, communication, relations with neighbors and siblings, education, local travel, how one speaks. Gemini is known as the "consummate man." Somewhat shallow and interested in the things of material life. It is also the divine number of creation. So, what's the connection here?
A: Matrix.
Q: (L) Is there something about this in the Matrix material?
A: No.
Q: (L) This IS a matrix. The third house and the eleventh house create a matrix?
A: Foundation.
Q: (L) In terms of cosmic things, Gemini is in June, Aquarius is in February... (S) Isn't the third house also about teaching? And, we are friends here and we are being taught...
A: This is not about you.
Q: (L) Okay. This is not about us. I am just trying to relate it. Gemini is in June, Aquarius is in February. Gemini is the physical man, and Aquarius is the spiritual man?
A: Yin Yang.
Q: (L) So Gemini is the physical man and Aquarius is the spiritual man... yin yang... is that the...
A: Yes...
Q: (L) So 33 could represent the transformation of the physical man to the divine man through the action of secret or hidden teachings... and those who have gone through this process represent themselves with the number 33, which means that they started out oriented to the flesh and then became...
A: Medusa 11.
Q: (L) Medusa 11? What does Medusa have to do with it? (S) What about spinning 33 times? (L) Please tell me how Medusa relates here?
A: Heads.
Q: (L) Heads. Medusa. 11. Were there eleven snakes on the head of Medusa or eleven heads? This is really obscure... you need to help me out here.
A: We are.
Q: (L) Do I need to read the Medusa legend to understand?
A: No.
Q: (L) Medusa. Heads. 11. Is there something about the mythical Medusa that we need to see here?
A: 11 squared divided by phi.
Q: (L) By pi. 11 squared divided by pi. What does this result bring us to?
A: 33.infinity.
Q: (L) Well, we don't get 33 out of this... we get 3.3166 etc if we divide the square root of 11 by pi. Divided by phi... what in the heck is phi? Okay, if we divide pi into 11, we get 3.5infinity, but not 33.
A: 1 times 1
Q: (L) Oh. You weren't saying 11 times 11, you were saying 1 times 1.
A: No.
Q: (L) 1 times 1 is what? 1.
A: 5 minus 3.
Q: (L) Okay, that's 2.
A: 2 minus 1.
Q: (L) Okay, that's 1. I don't get it. A math genius I am NOT. What is the concept here?
A: Look: 353535.
Q: (L) What is the 35 sequence?
A: 5 minus 3.
Q: (L) Okay, we have strange math. But, you can do anything with numbers because they correspond to the universe at deep levels...
A: Is code.
Q: (L) What does this code relate to? Is it letters or some written work?
A: Infinite power.

Now, isn't it remarkable how similar Don's description of the algorithm is to what the C's say above?

To follow up on the above discussion there was this:

96-12-14
Q: (L) Yes, and you know it's there. OK, let me jump over to this other subject of the number 33 and the number 11. Is there anything beyond what was given on 11-11-95, that you could add at this time, about any of the mathematics or the use of these numbers?
A: Prime numbers are the dwellings of the mystics.
Q: (L) What do you mean, "prime numbers are the dwellings of the mystics?"
A: Self-explanatory, if you use the tools given you.
Q: (L) How can a number be a dwelling?
A: Figure of speech. [Planchette spirals several times, vigorously] And how interesting that we have a new "cell" phone company called: "Primeco."
Q: (L) And how does a cell phone company called "Primeco" relate to prime numbers being dwellings of mystics?
A: Not for us to answer. [Word association by group: encryption, cells of monks, prisons, prime number divisible by one or self]
Q: (L) Is encryption the key?
A: Oh, there is so much here. One example is: "Snake eyes" is not so good as 7,11, eh?
Q: (T) They are all prime numbers, too; seven and eleven. (L) What kinds of documents or writings... or what would be applicable...
A: No, Laura you are trying to focus, or limit the concept, my dear. Think of it, what is the Judaic Christian legend for the creation of a woman?
Q: (L) That woman was taken from the rib of Adam. That Eve was created from the rib of Adam.
A: Ever heard of a "prime rib?"
Q: [Groans] (T) I hate being in kindergarten and not knowing what the subject is. Ok, prime rib. We have a prime rib, so...
A: What happens in a "Primary."
Q: (L) An election. You narrow down the candidates. What happens in a primary?
A: Who gets "picked" to run?
Q: (L) Ok, keep on...
A: "Prime Directive?"
Q: (L) OK.
A: "Prime time?"
Q: (L) The first, the best... and...
A: Not point
Q: (L) I know that's not the point! Is what we're saying here, is that we can use these prime numbers to derive something out of something else?
A: We told you about the mystics.
Q: (T) They're using prime numbers to... (L) Oh, ok, I get it. So, mystics... the mystics, the mystical secrets... dwell in the prime numbers if used as a code.
A: Name the primary mystical organizations for key to clue system.
Q: (L) ...key to clue system?
A: Yes. [We named: Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, Cabalism, Sufism, The Koran, Mysteries. Laura realized that she had just set aside the book "Understanding Mysticism," it was next to a book on Caballah on the bookcase in the room. Jesuits, Masons, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians]
Q: (L) All right. With our little list that we're making, are we on to something, or are we completely off track?
A: Yes, now check out those crop circles photos... any prime number combos there?
Q: (L) Do you mean in terms of dimension, or do you mean in composition?
A: Composition and dimensions... anything you can find. [Discussion: Sacred geometries, all sects listed use prime numbers. John 3:16-19, Corinthians 13. Genesis, Ch.2, verse 22 "rib taken from the man and made woman" - 2 is the only even prime number. Ch 3, v5..."your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be as the gods." (Eating from the Tree of Knowledge)]
Q: (T) ...to find a way of decoding it to get an answer, to get something, to get a message, to get something from it... (L) Are we thinking in any of the lines of something we ought to follow, or are we drifting?
A: All are lines you ought to follow. Now, look at the photos on the wall! [Referring to large photocopy of a number of crop circles we had pinned to the wall.]
Q: (L) OK, we're looking at them: point out something...
A: Count the large spheres in photo three.
Q: (L) There are seven.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And what does that photo represent?
A: Not yet.
Q: (T) OK, there are seven large circles; a large central one, and then six outer ones that are smaller. Each of the six smaller circles is connected to the larger circle by a shaft, or a line, or a conduit of some kind.
A: Add large and small spheres.
Q: (L) OK, there's seven. Add the large to the small and there's seven; add the little teeny ones, there's thirteen; and then even the little teeny-teeny, the little knobs on the ends, there would be six more, so that would be nineteen.
A: Yes...
Q: (T) So, that's another prime: nineteen is a prime number. (L) OK, they're prime numbers. And... (T) Are they... just as an offshoot here, do the six circles, the first set surrounding the large circle, are those the sixth density attached to the seventh density?
A: No comment.
Q: (T) OK now, and then, outside of that are smaller spheres, each one connected one to the next, in a line. We're looking at prime numbers here. What are we looking at? We've got a central one, six outer: large, six outside of that: smaller, six outside of that: tiny... Could, and I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, nothing cast in concrete, is this a representation of... a sphere, getting smaller and smaller... going that way. Or, coming in, this way. Or that way and this way. Like the infinity mirrors...
A: If you three dimensionalize.
Q: (L) It would be circles, like balls, like spheres. (T) Ohhh, it's an axis, an x-y-z axis! A three dimensional axis. Three-dimensionally, it would be like this [Holds up hand, forefinger pointed up, thumb pointed to himself, third finger at the horizontal] Larger, smaller, smaller... A three-dimensional axis. Are we going somewhere with this, or am I out in left field again?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) I'm going somewhere with this?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Ahhhh, I now see this as a three-dimensional object as opposed to a flat circle.
A: Do that to the others too.
Q: (L) OK, we're trying to three-dimensionalize them. Now, tell us where we're supposed to be going here... (J) Well, this first one is a spiral going out... Or a DNA molecule... (T) There's got to be more to it...
A: You do not have to figure this all out tonight, just some food for thought.
Q: (L) Is there anything else for...
A: Ark may be able to three-dimensionalize by computer program already.
Q: (L) Yes, well, let us get back to this. The crop circles, as I understand, are related to the code or the mystical prime numbers, the mystical dwellings, and that somehow, putting all of these things together, these different pieces of this puzzle, from so many different directions, will enable us to perceive, or learn, or conceive something that will enable us to do something. Is that correct?
A: Close.

We've done a number of three-dimensionalizations to date, including the quantum fractals and the wave lab which yielded some interesting results. I think Ark is working on a better version of the fractals right now, which might be related.

96-12-21
Q: (L) Now, time to stop messing around. You said that "prime numbers are the 'dwelling places' of the mystics." I have been poring over this material and it occurs to me that this was put in quotes for a reason, yes?
A: We put in quotes what we want further examined.
Q: I was thinking that this could be a clue on several levels. Could it be a clue to identify people and interactions?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) And, also as a means of decoding coded written material?
A: Sometimes.
Q: (L) Would this written material be some that is channeled, or more formal and general writings of mystics. Could it be, in other words, that they might write in a casual way and not be aware that they are channeling or writing in code?
A: Maybe.
Q: (L) I dug around about the Templars and have, more or less, come to the conclusion that they were just a smoke screen, and that something else was going on at the time that WAS important. I also think that they have been resurrected from time to time and dusted off and blamed for all this secret knowledge that is supposedly lost... am I on to something here?
A: Close.
Q: Who or what brought about the end of the Knights of the Temple?
A: Rosicrucians move as a "thief in the night."
Q: (L) But, as I understand it, the Rosicrucians did not come into being until after the end of the Templars...
A: No.
Q: (L) Do you mean that the information that came out, that pamphlet about "Christian Rosenkreutz," that is a purported fable, might be correct?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Well, goodness sake! The Rosicrucians advertise in magazines!!! Is this worldwide organization that promotes itself so blatantly...
A: Well, the "world-wide" order is not all inclusive.
Q: (L) Is there an inner circle of this order that is unknown?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are the Rosicrucians connected to the Masons?
A: In a roundabout away.
Q: (L) Are the Illuminati connected to the Rosicrucians in any way?
A: Same.
Q: (L) Of the three I have named, which would be considered the one that is closest to the inner circle?
A: Not the correct concept.
Q: (L) Do the Rosicrucians have writings in their keeping that they, themselves, do not understand?
A: Yes. So do the Masons.
Q: Would you say that the writings of Albert Pike might be interesting to decode?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Is there any particular number sequence that could be used?
A: 353535...
Q: (L) Is this also a genetic code?
A: Much is missing between "point A and point B."
Q: (L) You mean by jumping from documents to DNA?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) The Priory of Zion, that has been purported to be the progenitor or inheritor of the Templar tradition, is that a mystical organization of great secrecy and import?
A: It is a cover for.
Q: (L) Another smoke-screen.
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Getting back to the 353535 code: can you tell me more that will help me get to...
A: Better turn it over to Ark.
Q: (L) So, I should leave it alone for now?
A: Good idea.

And then this:

98-06-13
Q: Well, do you have anything else to say about Andromeda? (It's VERY HOT in here!) Okay, Medusa 11. So, this was 11 of the 33, and assuming that you were not saying that there were 11 heads, but that Medusa was one of three heads, is that what we are getting at here, that there are three heads and Medusa was one?
A: Or both times 2.
Q: What do you mean? I don't understand.
A: Both times 2 is your square, my dear. In other words, perfect balance.
Q: Okay...
A: No! Ponder; do not jump around so much, lest ye lose the chance to learn!
Q: So, Medusa represents both heads times 2, and that is the square and balance. But that is only 22 or 121. So where does the 33 come from?
A: All these 1s 2s and 3s... hmmm...
Q: Well, if Medusa is one of the heads, what is the other head called?
A: Who are your prime numbers?
Q: The dwellings or the mystics, or do you want specific numbers?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Who?
A: Who?
Q: How do we find out who are the prime numbers? Do we plot...
A: Who are the first 3?
Q: Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
A: Numbers!!!
Q: (A) 1 2 3 are the first three prime numbers...
A: Yes, thank you Arkadiusz!!!! Laura is dancing around in wonderland; meanwhile all of creation, of existence, is contained in 1, 2, 3!!! Look for this when you are trying to find the keys to the hidden secrets of all existence... They dwell within. 11, 22, 33, 1/2, 1/3, 1, 2, 3, 121, 11, 111, 222, 333, and so on! Get it?!?!
Q: When you say that the secrets of all existence dwell within 1 2 3 or variations thereof, what kind of secrets are we talking about here?
A: All. Well, name two at the top of the list just so I know where we are going here?
A: You can do that!
Q: Are we talking about secrets of physics?
A: Yes.
Q: Are we talking about secrets as in encoded words?
A: Yes.
Q: Are we talking about the Fibonacci series?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Continuous fractions?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) That means all...
A: Yes.
Q: So, how can we most effectively utilize this information in some way that makes it useful?
A: You have.
Q: How have I utilized it?
A: By receiving it.
Q: Speaking of three... should we continue on this Medusa subject at this point?
A: You are beginning to obsess. The answers lie within the finished painting, not within the paintbrushes.

Q: (A) Okay, I will. Now, I was communicating a little bit with a Finnish guy, Mattie Pitkanen, and he has a lot of material on his web pages and in his publications, which are very close to what I am thinking. First question, is he somehow channeling through his publications?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Who is he channeling?
A: All the masters have channeled, whether aware or not. The "who" is not Germaine.
Q: (A) It is not important. Now, he is talking a lot about p-edic numbers which are different from real numbers, and they are related to prime numbers, and it is a whole big area which may be important for development for the right mathematics for the future. What about p-edic numbers? Are they important?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Should I learn them?
A: With room for alterations the key to quantum jumps is always in discovering "new" mathematics.
Q: (A) Now, concerning new mathematics, I wanted to ask also, because I have received an elaborate treatise from somebody in China who is sending this treatise to all the greatest mathematicians of the world, and apparently I am one of them, and this is about what he calls the mathematics of Unified Field Theory which is based on I Ching. There are a lot of things that are very hard to follow. It is all about Chi and the way the Chinese philosophy tells us that our mathematics should be built on a different principle. Why am I repeatedly getting this? Is there some meaning, that I should really look into this?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) What, in particular, should I pay attention to?
A: The connection between philosophy and math.
Q: (A) A connection between philosophy and math. Okay, I will look.
A: You will find.
Q: (A) When I was asking about UFT, you said I should go back to 1969. I went back to 1969, but I don't have any notes from then, so the only thing I can remember that I was doing then which could relate, was that I was thinking about certain algebraic machinery which tells us that there is a kind of perfect symmetry between matter and anti-matter. Was this the clue?
A: Yes!
Q: (A) I was looking for the connection between the square root of 13 and phi and I couldn't find any. So, my question is, when you say square root of 13, do you mean an ordinary square root, or using one of these p-adic number fields?
A: Latter.
Q: (A) But, if so, then last time I took the calculator and computed the ordinary square root of thirteen; yet you did not stop me at this point, but ask me to subtract from this ordinary square root, the number phi. So, if it is not an ordinary square root, as you suggest, I would expect that you would not ask me to subtract from the wrong number!
A: We did not ask you to subtract from the "wrong" number. Besides, you did what you are supposed to do; think!! This quest is for you. Our prime channel is becoming weak and fatigued, so we must now go!

Connection between math and philosophy? "Prime numbers are the dwellings of the mystics." perhaps?

98-10-31
Q: Now, the other night, in front of the psychomantium, I did not exactly have a vision, but something came into my head, and the idea was that prime numbers are important because, the principle that they are only divisible by themselves and by one is indicative of the fact that they are direct links, channels, or conduits to seventh density, or first density, or something...
A: How about all densities?
Q: Okay, that is sort of what I mean, that they are, in a sense, gateways - would that be a good term?
A: Close.
Q: How does one utilize the energies inherent in prime numbers in this respect? Do they represent frequencies or frequency relationships?
A: Verities.
Q: Is there any formula, or any thing about prime numbers that makes it easier to find them... anything about them that is unique?
A: Pyramidal.
Q: Pyramid relationships would help one find prime numbers?
A: Graph.
Q: A pyramid type graph. Okay, anything else about prime numbers? When you said that they were the 'dwellings of the mystics' I had an idea that a prime number could be a dwelling of a mystic because the individual would express in some manner a frequency that related in some way to a prime number. Is that somewhere along the line...? That mystics can traverse all densities because of frequency?
A: Something like that.
Q: My next thought was that it could indicate actual places or locations in space time on the planet that would be represented by coordinates.
A: Zuber.
Q: What does THAT mean?
A: Research.

98-11-07
(A) You mentioned the term 'pyramidal' and I thought about putting prime numbers along a pyramid, around, higher and higher, but then, today, we discovered that Ulam was putting prime numbers along a spiral and there were funny patterns arising. So, I thought that maybe we should do something similar, but three dimensional rather than two. Is this the right track?
A: In prime numbers, you will find resonance.
Q: Resonance in prime numbers? Can you please elaborate a little bit on that?
A: Elaboration is not needed because the answers are there for you already in the texts, as with so much else. One needs only listen to the "music to your ears."
Q: Why didn't you answer my question about putting prime numbers around a pyramid?
A: Mathematics converts to sound in geometric measurements. Why do you think the pyramid became a pyramid?
Q: (A) It became a pyramid because it is a simple shape to build. (L) Did it become a pyramid because a sound shaped it? Determined its shape?
A: Closer.
Q: (L) And, what was the origin of this sound?
A: Those who heard it knew.
Q: (L) Who were those who heard it?
A: Those who knew how to convert math to sound. Why would the mystics reside there? Yahoo!
Q: (A) Somehow I have problems with following your clues, and I really don't know what is my problem...
A: The problem is impatience with the digestion phase.
Q: (A) How long can a digestion phase last? We don't have much time!
A: However long it takes. And who says you do not have much "time?" Answer, mi Arkady, answer!!
Q: (A) Well, I agree that I am impatient. But, the point is that I feel that if I would have a little bit more of a clue, I could do much more, and for now...
A: Our words sing to you. Let them ring.
Q: (A) What is the difference between singing and ringing? (L) I don't think that's the point. (A) Ring is to awake? Probably. You mean I am not taking your words seriously enough?
A: No. We meant to let it sink in rejoice. Exult!
Q: (L) Would it help...
A: Listen to Ludwig's 9th. Combine with the prime numbers, and what do you have?
Q: (L) Hmmm... Musical notation that relates to prime numbers?
A: Why not bring the ninth in here now for inspiration?!? [We put the ninth on and crank up the volume so that it can be heard.]
Q: (L) Okay, now we can hear it, but not too loudly.
A: That is good.
Q: (L) Now my question is: if you translate numbers into musical sequence or notation, does this accomplish the deed?
A: You are certainly on your way!
Q: (A) What can I do as a mathematician or what SHOULD I do?
A: Let the pathway lead you. It has not yet failed Lolly. [Laughter at the use of Laura's nickname.] So you insinuate failure for yourself? Tsk tsk, my boy. Faith in this enterprise takes one places. Look where it has taken you so far!!
Q: (L) I think that they just mean that you need to be more patient, and do what occurs to you to do, try different things that inspire you and something will come out of it. It always does! And, sometimes, the most bizarre things... you will have an urge to do something, to read something, and something happens that hits you like a ton of bricks... and you KNOW it! It has happened over and over again! You are impatient! Yet, sometimes you are incredibly patient... You are impatient with yourself.

98-11-14
Q: (A) I have a question that goes back more than a year ago when you were speaking about numbers 1, 2, 3; how important they are. You gave some examples: 1,1; 2,2; 3,3; 1,1,1; 2,2,2; 3,3,3; 1 over 2 or 3; 111, 222, 333; the point probably being that everything of significance is related or will come out to 1, 2, 3 or combinations thereof. However when I tried to understand this mathematically, I noticed that you never used zero. In math, any number system uses zero. 101 is also a way to code something. Why did you omit zero? What was the reason?
A: The self-cancellation factor allows zero to appear in any sequence if needed. What does 0 represent?
Q: (A) In any number system, we use zero because any number system is based on zero and some digits. So, whenever we code numbers...
A: But what does it represent?
Q: (A) It tells us that, at any give place we have zero of the given unit. For instance, when I have 10, it means that I have one ten and zero ones. Without zero, ten would not exist.
A: But can one not insert 0 where one needs to?
Q: (A) Of course one can insert zero where one needs to the same as one can insert 3 or 1 or 2 when one needs to.
A: No. Zero is what?
Q: (A) Zero is one of the integer numbers. (L) Zero is not a number. (A) Zero is a number. (L) No it's not. (A) Yes. Zero is a number. Minus 1 is a number, plus 1 is a number... (L) But zero is not. (A) Zero is a number. (L) Zero represents 'not.' (A) When you subtract 1 minus 1, if you say zero is not a number... (L) But that is an example of self-cancellation!
A: Yes. When one subtracts one from one, one is left with nothing. Therefore, in real terms, zero is potentially evident everywhere.
Q: (A) How would I write 10 without using zero? Without using zero, 10 would be 1. (L) Or ten ones.
A: Or 9 + 1. 11 - 1.
Q: (A) But the point is that 11 - 1 is the same as 12 - 2, is the same as 13 - 3, and it is very silly to just pretend that it does not exist!
A: Nobody is pretending that it does not exist, it is everywhere. Another numerical system could represent "10" just as accurately by inventing another number to represent that quantity.
Q: (A) So, when you were using this 11, 22, 33, and so on, were you having in mind binary number system based on two numbers or ternary number system based on three numbers?
A: Either/or.
Q: (A) Could it have also been a decimal system?
A: Decimals represent the "floating factor."
Q: (A) I was asking whether you had in mind binary or ternary and you say either/or. So it's not so important, I understand, whether it is either. But, perhaps, when you say 'either/or' about my question, you could also say either/or about anything else. For instance, a number system based on 4 numbers.
A: Yes.
Q: (A) What's wrong with 4?
A: Because 4 is not prime.
Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density, see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum.
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.
Q: (A) When you talk about this 4th dimension, what is the closest thing in currently understood physics that corresponds to this term? I cannot find anything that corresponds. It is not in relativity theory, it is not in Einstein, it is not in Kaluza-Klein...
A: Exactly, because it has not been hypothesized.
Q: (A) I want to ask about my experiment with prime numbers now. We were trying to put prime numbers into a pyramid to try to discover what you meant by the term 'pyramidal.' There are pyramidal numbers that relate to pyramids. So, we were putting these prime numbers into pyramids, into squares, all kinds of things; generating sounds with prime numbers, but nothing came of it, and I have no idea what to try next. What am I looking for? That is the question. What are we missing?
A: You are not missing. You simply have not reached the point of confluence.
Q: (A) What about these sounds? Producing sound; what is it supposed to do? Suppose we experiment with producing sound, what are we supposed to look for with these experiments?
A: We cannot tell you that! There would be no point in your quest.
Q: (L) One thing I noticed in one of the constructions he made, and I believe that it was started with 1 at the top and went around the pyramid, dropping down at the same point on each level, continuing around, filling the entire pyramid with primes; there were 100 levels, or layers, and one thing I noticed when moving this object around and viewing it from different perspectives, that there were some strang forms or configurations; at one point I could clearly see a spiral, and in some places there were clearly 'holes' that went all the way through the pyramid. Of this particular method, which I think is somewhere going in the right direction, would there be an advantage to devising a specific method of laying out the prime numbers? Would this bring better results, and if so, could you give us a clue as to the better way of laying out the numbers?
A: Try using magnets. Magnetic surface, combined with metal shavings.
Q: (L) If the metal shavings are supposed to represent the prime numbers, do the smaller numbers... (A) When you say to use magnets, would it be sufficient if I represent these magnets mathematically on the computer?
A: That would be a start. You want a three dimensional model.

02-02-23
(R) Okay, let's ask about the computer program we have been working on. [Ark and RO, a Java expert, had spent the previous week working on creating this program, based on Schrodinger's equation and Ark's Event Enhanced Quantum Theory. The program simulates graphically scattering, interference, and collapse of quantum probability waves.] The graphical artifacts that we are seeing in the program are they actual or are they caused by numerical problems or errors in the program?
A: Numerical serendipity is more like it.
Q: (A): What, what? (L) I think "serendipity" is a pleasant discovery, from a story about the Land of Serendip. (R) Okay so, is it something that we should investigate or should we focus on other things?
A: Absolutely. Remember the Benzene Ring. Idea structure was seen first, then followed explication when application was realized.
Q: (R) If we can see some application of it then it will be such that we can back engineer it and figure out the cause of it. Now we are just looking at it in terms of what is it? What is it doing? What is it? But if we can see some application... (A) Well we see one application, a screen saver (laughter). (R) I think maybe we should find some more interesting application, but it is a good principle to find an application of it because that's what can lead us back to what it is. (A) Yeah, that's true. Well, can you help us with what is the application, give us some direction?
A: Think of the Benzene "Ring."
Q: (R) Is that only used in chemistry? Or is it used in math as well? (L) Do you know the story of the Benzene Ring? (R) No. I only heard about it in chemistry. (M) The story of the Benzene Ring is the guy that came up with and applied to chemistry, dreamed of a snake biting its tail and rolling along, and so he applied that to benzene molecular structure which is double bonds and a single bond sequence. (R) So that seems to mean that we are on the right track by trying to see if there is something there. (L) Maybe the key is the word ring. (A) No you see, what is mysterious, the fact that things are forming, okay it is discrete structure, numerical errors, roundings, you know all kinds of these artifacts. But, the fact that they look like three dimensional spirals - even if they are created in one dimension - I have no explanation. I don't even have an idea how to explain why would they ever create these spirals? Where are these extra dimensions coming from? I have no idea. (MN) Still, there is no application unless you can solve it.
A: Ring.
Q:(R) Yes, because its a cycle. It's what was said before. It's like a loop. (L) Well let me ask this--you've got it moving back and forth between two barriers right? Can you make the ends connect? (R) Yes. But then nothing happens because then it just moves and moves and moves, it is just the initial shape moving out and coming in another. So nothing happens the only thing... (M) The wave doesn't change. (R) Exactly. So it only happens when it has to react with a barrier. (L) Uh huh. (R) That's the only time it happens because that's what's causing... (B) Could the barrier represent a density? (R) It could, yeah, actually.
A: Double loop.
Q:(R) Double loop, yeah, exactly. (MN) Double helix? (R) Yeah, because it's looping...because if you look at the 3D part of it it's not a spiral, it's a cone. (A) Right. (R) Because it is spiraling like that, and if you increase the resolution, then it will be a perfect cone which is moving like that at the same time it is moving like that. (demonstrates with hand gestures) And it is moving like that because of balance - because it has to be from an equal amount [of energy] on either side. (V) It builds it from itself? (R) Yeah the thing is like this, if you have a packet of energy going like this and it meets a boundary, either it can fold up like that - just under its own pressure - and then spring back. Or, it can utilize the extra dimensions and coil. Like if you have a string and you just do like that, it won't be at one point. So I think it's the same thing here. But how to find out? We need to have some algorithm for the 3rd dimension for this folding. (A) Umhmm. (V) What if there is indeed something happening there that you're not seeing? Like we were talking about at the beginning of the session here: that you can't know what you can't know because you can't see it because it's veiled? What are the possibilities that there is something else happening there to be discovered or uncovered? (R) And I think that it seems like the only reason it is manifesting is because the wave is hitting an obstacle. So, the 3rd dimension - it was always there as a possibility - but it didn't manifest until the wave hit an obstacle. So the obstacle, in effect, is creating the additional dimension. It was always there but it didn't manifest until an obstacle was put into the wave's path.
A: Consciousness energy directors.
Q:(R) Exactly. Because if the wave is hitting an obstacle, if it just follows mechanics, it's going fold up because that's the law. But, if you have consciousness interacting with the energy, then it can say "hey look it is more efficient if you don't fold up, it is more efficient if you utilize this extra dimension, because there is then less pressure in the wave if you are using this extra dimension." But you need that consciousness to kind of say: "hey look there is this extra dimension that you can utilize." And it has to say how to utilize it because it has to choose a direction to start folding into. (B) If our consciousness defines the parameters of 3rd density, could the barriers on either side of the wave represent the barriers of the outside parameters of 3rd density which causes this continual looping back and forth? And it may be doing something else in a different density that doesn't have those barriers?
A: Frequency resonance envelope.
Q: (R) Exactly, it makes total sense. So frequency resonance envelopes are realms. And our program shows that the only time interesting things happen to a wave is when it hits an obstacle. And it only manifests the extra dimension if someone helps the wave to choose which way to start folding out into the extra dimension. So if densities in effect are frequency resonance envelopes, which exist as obstacles, that waves of energy can resonate within...yeah exactly...that makes kind of sense. (JN) What if the level of consciousness is the barrier? (R) Yeah exactly. Consciousness energy directors, and the more awareness you have the more possibilities you can see to direct the energy. (JN) The less obstruction. (R) Yeah, or you can choose this... (V) You say you believe something because it's the law, but... (R) Yeah, because those are the parameters that you see, but the more awareness you have, the more you see, the more you can find, then you can know dimensions that you can escape into. You have the box, you say it's closed, we can't get out of it. But if you have more awareness, you can say "well there's some other dimension out of the box that we can use." Do I make sense?
A: You are going in the right direction...
Q:(R) Which is of course, kind of humorous since they just talked about consciousness as energy directors and we are going in the right direction. So we are directing the energy in a conscious way towards the right frequency resonance envelope. (L) I'm glad you know what you're talking about. (JN) Now don't anyone lick that envelope and seal it up! (R) Okay, well this makes sense. So the basic concept to recap is that densities are frequency resonance envelopes in the same way that the barriers in our program are barriers. We have modeled densities on a computer program. Densities are envelopes. Frequency Resonance Envelopes. You have energy bouncing back and forth and without conscious directing of that energy it's not going to utilize anything more than the paths that are kind of obvious - the default. But as soon as you start to direct that energy, you can direct it in such a way that it exceeds the envelope. (J) So think outside the envelope. (R) Exactly because you are redefining the envelope. You are finding bigger and bigger slots.
A: Prime numbers show the door.
Q:(R) It's perfect. So in the simulation, the spirals seem to always be prime numbers. We have 3, 5, 7, 11, 19 - I think we have seen at some point. (A) 2 is also prime number (laughter). (V) But not a 13? (R) I think we have seen 13. It depends on what parameters you set. I think we can find pretty much any prime number depending on the values. (A) I don't believe it. (R) He doesn't believe it. (A) No. It is a hypothesis. (R) Is the number of apparent spirals always a prime number?
A: Ark is not right on the money.
Q:(A) I am. I will show you! (B) Does that mean he's close? (R) You can't be close. Either it's prime numbers or it's not. (A) What did they say that I am not right? Right? (R) Right, exactly. (A) Okay, I will show you guys. (L) How are you going to show them? (A) We will do an experiment and we will show that it's not prime numbers. And the C's will have to recant! [laughter]. But there are many other ways in which prime number can come into this game and probably they are coming into this game and it will be very nice to find this out.
A: Find out, in deed.
Q: (L) Well that's kind of a pun, find out "in deed" - by doing. (R) We are on a very, very interesting path here because we just defined what a density is. It's a frequency resonance envelope. (A) The question is frequency of what?
A: Yes, of those in the orchestra.
Q: (L) So it is by agreement. (A) What is by agreement? (L) To be in the orchestra, frequency resonance envelope. (B) Not only to be, but to play within those parameters. (L) Who gets to pick what gets played?
A: Ah! There's the rub!

And I think we are now seeing why they made that reference to "ring" over and over...

02-02-26
Q: (R) What is the relationship between the platonic solids in our quantum fractal simulations and the fractal patterns? It seems to relate back to the discussions you had about the tetrahedrons and the hexagons? (A) Yeah. So that's a funny thing that I was using, tetrahedrons for this quantum simulation, before knowing much about it. So question is: what they are they good for? Maybe they are important or maybe not. (L) Can you experiment and find out? (A) No because we don't know how to experiment, what to do with them. For instance these people - these sacred geometry people or whoever - they think that these solids - 200 cells or 600 cells - are for some reason important. Right. They have no idea for what reason. They think they know, but I have no idea what is the function of this shape.
A: Such polytopes are end products not initiators.
Q: (R) So something else is initiating it and it results in the polytopes. What do the fractal patterns represent?
A: Events.
Q: (R) Are the detectors that we are using in the EEQT Theory actual? Should they be included? (A) I have a theory that the way we are using these detectors is just temporary, and that they really represent some kind of a moving to a different density or dimension which we have not yet modeled. (R) So they are a temporary simplification. (A) Right.
A: It will unfold!
Q: (A) I have a question because when I was asking about quantum jumps, the answer was, I don't know if I will be able to read because it is in cipher, it's coded. I cannot decode okay. Reads: "With respect to ummm... (Ark and Rickard are reading from a paper) (R) "With room for alterations, the way to quantum jumps the key to quantum jumps is always in discovering new mathematics." My first question is about this 'room for alterations' which sounds very suspicious - like hinting. 'Room' here is a strange word. I suspect that it has hidden meaning like for instance Hilbert space. It is my guess that the room here has a double meaning correct?
A: Di/bi/double.
Q: (L) Di like dipole, bi like a bipole and double, which is triple meaning. (A) Now this new mathematics was the answer I was given when I was asking about the p-adic numbers, which relates to the prime numbers. So I got a book on p-adic numbers. And I am ready to jump into this new mathematics, but I don't want jump into the wrong thing, okay? So the question is: what is this 'new mathematics?' Can it be related to quantum jumps?
A: In this respect you are going to have to put the puzzle together from many pieces.
Q: (L) So there is no one form of mathematics that's going to cover everything. (R) We have fractals, we have p-adic numbers, primes, rings, and groups. Ah! Should we ask if the Benzene Ring was also related to group and ring algebra, not just algebra, is that a good question? (A) Yeah, we know that algebra is important, we know that algebra is the main math, so that if we ask about algebra the answer would certainly be 'yes,' so it is not specific enough. (R) Okay. Should we ask whether it is ring algebra in combination with prime numbers? (A) Yes, certainly the answer is 'yes' because when we study prime numbers it automatically comes with the rings. There's no way to avoid it. (R) I have only one question left on that and that is whether the detectors are consciousness interface points, is that where consciousness is interfacing with reality?
A: Frequency awareness boundaries.
Q: (L) What are frequency awareness boundaries made of? Whose awareness? (R) But it makes sense. (L) Yeah, but whose awareness is it a boundary of? (R) I guess ours. (A) Who is 'ours'? Whose awareness? Universal? (R) General, for any awareness I suppose.
A: 7th density nature/divisions.
Q: (A) Okay, so there is this general -what Gurdjieff calls worlds - he had a very good description. (R) Okay so my question would be if consciousness, for example us three in this room, are we interacting with reality through 7th density which uses these frequency awareness boundaries? Right so it's kind of a middle step. I'm not sure how to phrase it.
A: 7th density interacts with divisions through you.
Q: (R) Ah! So it is not us interacting with reality through 7th density it's the other way around. 7th density is interacting with the concept of divisions through us. (A) That is how it works. (L) We're it. (R) We are the interface. (R) Of course, duh! (L) We could've had a V-8Q! (A) When I was looking for the right keywords for my chapter, I came across this Matti Pitkanen. And I started to read. And he had all the things that were in my mind or were mentioned by the C's or that I was asking C's...(L) So did Dan Winter. (A) Well, Matti is a physicist! (L) So is Dan Winter according to his own claims! (A) Ouch! So Matti had all the right things and he knew math; p-adic numbers I learned from him. Complexification, dimensions, quantum jumps even. Where is he getting all these right keywords? What is his role? Who makes him to resonate to all the right things? I don't understand what such people do, how they come along with all these things.
A: Suffering activates neuro-chemicals which turn on DNA receptors.

02-09-14
Q: (A) Okay. Now: Prime numbers. Back to some math and some prime numbers in the sessions that we had long ago. The idea at that time was to relate or to make a graph of prime numbers by using a pyramid. I tried to do it without much success. But just last week I found by chance that there's a guy in Germany who did it without knowing about C's. He produced just such a graph. Here it is [Ark shows image.] He did it. It is a graph of whole numbers and he assembled it in a pyramid and you see how prime numbers arrange according to certain lines. There is a certain order which can be found. So my question is whether what he did really is what I was supposed to do because I was trying to assemble prime numbers in a three dimensional pyramid, which doesn't fit your description or to make a graph because three dimensional thing is not really a graph. The question is: is this pyramid which I got from this guy what I was supposed to do?
A: Close but not there yet.
Q: (A) Can I have a hint what is lacking? A different ordering of numbers would be better?
A: Most likely. You will just "stumble" on the method.
Q: (A) Another question related to prime numbers: you said in prime numbers you will find resonance and I was kind of surprised about that...
A: There is your clue.
Q: (A) It was supposed to be related to sound. But I have a problem with sound because sound frequency depends on the medium in which sound propagates. The medium can be air, can be stone, can be anything; the frequency spectrum will depend on the medium. Now we are talking about pyramids and sound related to pyramids. Was this...
A: Yes...Pyramid, Pyrenees, Pyr...
Q: (V) There must be something about the Pyr. How does Pyr relate to prime numbers? (A) Where is pyramid, where are they coming from, where's the name coming from, what's this? Pyro, fire, no? (L) Yeah, fire.
A: Frequency of light...
Q: (A) Sonoluminescence. But again there is this term frequency. I have areal problem with you guys using the term frequency because frequency is number of oscillations per unit of time. But what is the unit of time? A second, a minute, an hour, a year?
A: Can we say "nano?"
Q: (A) It doesn't make sense because what's nano? It doesn't explain in which unit frequency is supposed to be measured. There is no such thing as frequency if we don't say which unit of time. So nano suggests it should be some nano measure of frequency, or natural frequency. But I don't know any particular frequency that, so to say, can serve as a unit of time.
A: How long is a grand cycle? Think in those subunits.
Q: (L) Well a grand cycle is what, 309,000 years? So how does that relate? (A) Essentially it defines a unit of time. So if I say frequency is equal to 1, it means one grand cycle, if I say frequency equals 10, it means 10 oscillations per grand cycle, and so on, okay. Okay, it's a kind of an answer. If anything, it makes sense. I can do something with it. Okay, at some point when we were talking about these prime numbers, you mentioned a name and the name was Zuber. I asked what does it mean and you answered 'research.' Well I was researching, of course. I was just looking about, using google. I was looking for Zuber and prime numbers and something like this. And, surprise, surprise! There were essentially, very few references, and all of them were to Matti Pitkanen. So he has a lot of papers about prime numbers and theory of everything based on prime numbers...(L) How did Zuber get in there? (A) Zuber is one of these references because one of the references is a famous book, which I even have, by a physicist named Zuber, about quantum field theory! So my question: , is the Zuber of the book on quantum field theory and conformal theories and so on, the right Zuber?
A: What do you think?
Q: (A) I think chances are 50%. And chances are that he's not the same.
A: 80 percent!
Q: (A) 80%, that doesn't help much! I have this paper by Matti Pitkanen here, maybe you will reevaluate this. The paper is called Quantum Criticality and 1 over F nosxe. and here's Zuber. Let me read it, hmm... [reading] conformal invariance, yeah, it must be the same. Okay, 90 percent! [laughter].
A: 100!

And that is all I was able to find so far. If anyone knows any other relevant sessions, please add them here.

But in general, it seems like what Don has presented provides another piece of the puzzle, and it fits really well with the clues given by the C's over the years.

 

[name]

@foofighter:
i managed to print out above paper doing lots of cropping with gimp. what is sighnificant is that it describes a structure to the distribution of primes, what nobody has yet managed as far as i know. i think that this makes all crypto based on primes and their 'murky' properties moot.

i've been interested in cryptography in the past but since i am not proficient in math beyond being able to read and partially understand math texts, i left that. while i found pgp and PK crypto fascinating, what always bothered me was that it was based on something the authors did not understand well enough, namely the properties of primes. my suspicion was confirmed when in 1998 (IIRC) the people from no-such-agency stopped interdicting against the export of pgp, which until then had been on the munitions list. they never commented on their reasons, but i suspect that they must have discovered something similar to what above paper says.

also, as crypto goes, it is interesting to remember a less well known part of the odissey of the venerable DES. when the original design was passed from ibm to the spooks for checking, they returned it with some of the permutations changed but never explained why they had done so. the reason could well have been something similar to above paper.

last but not least, neither DES nor pgp/rsa PK crypto ever made it for the top security gradings, and the same is true for AES-256. DES and AES are not based on properties of primes as far as i know, at least directly.

they're probably decrypting all PK encrypted intercepts with a bunch of 486s

reading thru the paper, primes have a fractal 'feeling' to them, at least remind me of what fractals do in their repetitiveness in changing dimensions, the K. i'd really like to see what a mathematician makes out of the christman paper after giving it a formal treatment.

IMO don christman earned himself a nomination to the nobel prize for that paper above.

 

[foofighter]

@foofighter:
i managed to print out above paper doing lots of cropping with gimp. what is sighnificant is that it describes a structure to the distribution of primes, what nobody has yet managed as far as i know. i think that this makes all crypto based on primes and their 'murky' properties moot.

I had the same feeling, but since I wasn't sure I contacted two people yesterday who knows about these things: one guy responsible for a PK certificate infrastructure in the Swedish government, and another working for RSA here in Sweden. The conclusion from talking to both of them is that initially the ability to generate the list of primes, by itself, is not going to change anything. All primes used as keys are already precalculated in tables anyway, so the main problem is still with integer factorization.

Now, whether the above theory can be expanded to make factorization easier is another question. Since, as you note, there is a certain fractal feel to it, and also a definite wave feeling about them (considering the symmetry within each residue set), it might be possible to use these properties in a way that helps factorization. That remains to be seen, but I can certainly see how it would be possible given the above.

reading thru the paper, primes have a fractal 'feeling' to them, at least remind me of what fractals do in their repetitiveness in changing dimensions, the K. i'd really like to see what a mathematician makes out of the christman paper after giving it a formal treatment.

Yup, as and in my first reply, I'd really like to try some visualizations based on this stuff.

IMO don christman earned himself a nomination to the nobel prize for that paper above.

Anything less would be remarkable.

I'm still amazed. And giggly.

 

[foofighter]

I've now written a computer algo that replicates this, and it's pretty cool. But, it gets to SPD17 and then crashes because the sets become absolutely huge.

If all I want is to generate the list of primes, do I have to maintain the entire residue set? Or is it possible to cheat in any way here? Basically, what I'm after is a way to find large primes as quickly as possible. Any way to minimize the amount of state that I have to maintain for each iteration would be nice.

 

[sHiZo963]

Reading through this thread was nothing short of Fascinating. It was my first time reading many of the sessions you posted, foofighter, and I thank you for posting them like you did.

Now, I'm sure many of you have heard of Stephen Wolfram, creator of the software Mathematica and pretty famous Mathematician/Computer Scientist. He published a book recently called A NEW Kind Of Science, in which he attempts to prove a theory he's been working on for many years.

I've attempted to read this book about a year ago, and it really is quite interesting... then I found Cassiopaea and my whole world view changed, and I've set it aside since. In any case, after reading this thread, light bulbs started going off in my head, and I realized that there MAY be some strong connections in what's being talked about here.

C's said: "With room for alterations the key to quantum jumps is always in discovering "new" mathematics."
I'm no mathematician or scientist, but NEW is new - so I might as well mention it here :)

Wolfram's theory is based on cellular automata - simple mathematical rules that, when repeated an insanely-huge number of times, tend to yield totally complex 'randomness' (Quantum?!) where simple to moderately complex patterns would be expected. Stumbling upon these simple rules, Wolfram ran thousands of computer experiments trying to figure them out. The implications are huge, as he writes in the first chapter:

Perhaps immediately most dramatic is that it [the NEW science] yields a resolution to what has long been considered the single greatest mystery of the natural world: what secret it is that allows nature seemingly so effortlessly to produce so much that appears to us so complex.

It could have been, after all, that in the natural world we would mostly see forms like squares and circles that we consider simple. But in fact one of the most striking features of the natural world is that across a vast range of physical, biological, and other systems we are continually confronted with what seems to be immense complexity. And indeed throughout most of history it has been taken almost for granted that such complexity - being so vastly greater than in the works of humans - could only be the work of a supernatural being.

Back to the topic - the talk of pyramids instantly reminded me of the hundreds of pictures in this book of cell(ular) pyramids (representing cellular automata behavior). You start with one cell, and by applying the same simple rule over and over as you go down, you develop this cell pyramid. MOST of the time the results are predictable: simple rules = simple patterns. But, as Wolfram discovered, SOME of the simple rules develop unprecedented complexity or randomness the further down the chain you go. Could these special "rules" be related to prime numbers? No clue, as I have not gotten through more than 2 chapters of this massive book, and even that was a while ago.

I recommend that you all take a look at this book, particularly the pyramids shown there; it is my hope that it may bring some new information to the QFS research projects, for I have searched the forums and have not found one reference to Wolfram and/or his work.
EDIT: I did find a couple references to Cellular Automata by John G in the "Outer Space/Inner Space" forum, but they were mentioned only in passing, it seems.

The book is called A New Kind of Science and is available FREE online at:
http://www(dot)wolframscience(dot)com/nksonline/toc.html

After viewing about a dozen pages, the site may ask you to register, which is no biggie, for then you can have unlimited access to the book. I have been registered for over a year and have not gotten any spam in my e-mail.

Hope this helps in any way :)

 

[John G]

Here is a link about Wolfram's work that does briefly mention primes and gives a link to more information on primes:

http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/clif256rules.html

Someday I would like a good picture in my mind how primes in various places relate to each other: Wolfram, Ark's EEQT, Feynman paths, Matti Pitkanen's P-adic model, higher dim Ulam spirals, etc.

 

[christx11]

I have been dealing with general law the last few days but I wanted to get back to what I posted as to not make it a hit and run post.

First I don't really know what this is or if it is significant at all to begin with. I confess that part of the post was for selfish reasons out of frustration and I just wanted to scream at the universe. Not very considerate. I even posted it on 11/4 as a play on 411 just as a part of the scream. And I put it here in the 'Creative Acts' thread because it looks like it is an act of creation to me. All selfish, but the scream has helped me none the less.

The post was basically me talking to my self - thinking, perhaps incoherent. For several years I have been trying to find someone who sees what I see and perhaps to direct me to information that I could better understand what it is. I am handicapped by my lack of higher mathematics, so reading a lot of papers is difficult and just trying to understand whether this observation is trivial or whether there is tons of study in it already is difficult. My math is more observational and visual. In many respects it is trivial. It is just re-inventing the wheel - the wheel sieve. It is just the Sieve of Eratosthenes. I did not come up with the algorithm. I saw the fact that every SOE set (SPD) set was periodic (2001). About a year later I found Liu Fengsui's post on the PrimePuzzle's via links from some Yahoo math and prime's groups. At that point I said to myself, well at least some one else sees it and they even have the Algorithm. Liu currently has a paper submitted to WSEAS for a proof of the K-Tuple Conjecture. I have also found someone who in 1999 proposed a binary bit shifting sieve with basically the same idea. I have also recently found a paper by a French mathematician (2005) using the same technique as a novel approach as a modified wheel sieve in parallel processing.

It will not as it is be any breakthrough in cracking encryption schemes. It does not as has been already discovered provide a way to factor large numbers.

What I find interesting about it is the periodicity. The fact that no matter how large the SPD set, it can still be represented by a finite sequence that repeats K (countably infinite times). There are all kinds of other things that intrigue me. Proofs that are simple to see for the infinitude of primes (Liu presents just one), Liu's possible proof of the K-tuple conjecture, what else can be done with it? Looking at the infinite sums of the SPD's can we divide infinite numbers (I think yes), can we add, subtract, multiply, infinite numbers? Does the periodicity work in the harmonic series? Does putting a real valued exponent or complex exponent on the n elements allow the periodicity to still hold true? I have dozens of them. There are tons of other observations.

The clues per se in the Sessions are numerous. But here again clues and what they pertain to lead to many paths. I could mention dozens of other things in the Sessions that could pertain - LAWRA (anagram) - Linear Algebra With Recursive Algorithms, connection between philosophy and math (feng shui - Fengsui??). There is all kinds of stuff, but we (as I am sure I have done) can get carried away with fitting data to clues and wishful thinking.

I think it is fascinating and will continue to think so.

Some of the questions here.

Foo - the algorithm is not economical and I don't think it can be. I may be wrong. The order of the SPD sets grows very quickly. Removing any of the periodic SPD members prematurely will crash it. It is an explicit construction and messing with it shatters it. Now, if it ever was found to apply in other ways - in the harmonics, other areas where we can get convergence, if it conceptually moved into geometry, if relationships were discovered that made some new functional equations, then maybe it could be utilized. But then again I do not know if this isn't already true and exists in many places and branches of math already and that this is just a different way of looking at something that gets us to a place that is already covered.

So, as I said I still find it fascinating and I will still continue to think about it. Hopefully it will not be a dwelling type of thought.

Thanks Ark, I have read Marek's papers a number of times in the past several years. I have to admit that my understandings of the higher maths hamper me. But I am very intrigued by many of Marek's results so far, especially the jumping champions and the results regarding how the most frequently occurring gaps tend to the primorial intervals themselves. I see connections and possibly more. I am sure I am missing a lot though also.

Thanks