VLRPNs
 

There is no Forum for these :[


I *may have* discovered a new method of finding VLRPNs, or Very Large
Regular Prime Numbers - visually, graphically. Without even making one
calculation. Contemporary searches today require Quadrillions to Googols
of Iterations...the only limitation with mine is the number of pixels you can process.

I have been searching PRIOR ART, but there doesn't seem to be any.

*OR*

I am not aware of any Research in this area.

If anyone knows of a VISUAL METHOD for ANY TYPE of Prime
Number Discovery, I think YOU GUYS would be THE ONES.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198677]Contemporary searches today require Quadrillions to Googols
of Iterations...the only limitation with mine is the number of pixels you can process.[/quote]But a limitation of large numbers of pixels you can process really isn't any different from a limitation of requiring large numbers of iterations, is it?

[quote]I have been searching PRIOR ART, but there doesn't seem to be any.

*OR*

I am not aware of any Research in this area.

If anyone knows of a VISUAL METHOD for ANY TYPE of Prime
Number Discovery, I think YOU GUYS would be THE ONES.[/quote]You mean that you want to find primes by just looking at some type of diagram/graph/display?
If so, how do you propose getting around the limitations of human vision?

Can you describe a simple example of what you have in mind?

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198677]I *may have* discovered a new method of finding VLRPNs, or Very Large
Regular Prime Numbers - visually, graphically.[/QUOTE]

Would you give an example?

I also have a secret (until now of course) graphical method of finding primes. And I shall reveal it below (aren't you lucky?).

Arrange N (our number to be tested) pixels in a straight line on the screen. Then try to make two lines by rearranging the pixels with ~half on one line and the rest below it. If the length of the two lines of pixels are equal then N is not prime and stop. Else continue and try to make three equal length lines. If you can get all the pixels in three equal line lengths then N is not prime and stop. Repeat for four, five, ... up to the square root of N lines.

This can also test numbers up to really really huge proportions without a single calculation/computation. It is at least possible to test number up to the really really huge value of 1000, maybe even higher if you are patient enough.

Pretty neat eh.

Woot, now I will be famous. Yay me.

[size=1]Or did I post this in the [url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=100881]wrong topic[/url]?[/size]

HAHA, Retina, your post matches your Avatar so nicely ;-P


I will not reveal this in its entirety until I have perfected it to
my satisfaction, and claimed this as an [B]Original Idea[/B].
I have to insist on being given credit by .... Humanity. hehe
I had a discovery in tenth grade that partially failed claiming bragging rights.
I have been working on this for over three years.
It may take a Lifetime to finish...

In one of my math boards (which alas, is now inactive),
someone posed a challenge where I wanted to find the answer
by looking at an image of a matrix. I could have written a Perl script,
which could ssolve it in 420.ms, but I wanted Visual Proof.
>>> We LeftHanders are Visual Beasts <<< haha
It was a 1M x 1M image, So a MegaPx. All the Prime Numbers lined
up in a Straight Line due to the nature of the challenge.
The practically said "'ere I am, JH".

I cannot afford to get into arguments over its validity.
If this is just another Troll Board (I think it is NOT), I'll move on.
If you have knowledge of PRIOR ART, is all I care about.


I could re-install GIMPS if that helps :smile:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198677]Without even making one
calculation. [/quote]

I realize how OxyMoronish this sounded. It was very late in my TZ.
There ARE calculations to be performed, but not the usual and customary ones.
The real point is, it only uses 1/100th of a percent of CPU cycles versus current methods,
so it can VASTLY improve the speed at which other types of PRimes can be discovered.

I 'umbly think we could find a Trillion digit Mersenne with it.

Relatively soon.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]It was a 1M x 1M image, So a MegaPx.[/quote]
1M*1M is 1T (trillion/tera). 1K*1K is 1M (million/mega).
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]I cannot afford to get into arguments over its validity. [/quote]
Maybe you don't [I]want[/I] to get into arguments over its validity, but for your idea to be remotely useful, for it to matter a bit if anybody before you came up with it, it needs to be valid.
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]If this is just another Troll Board (I think it is NOT), I'll move on.[/quote]
This isn't a troll board, but to be honest you're sounding something like a crank.
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]If you have knowledge of PRIOR ART, is all I care about. [/quote]
How can we know if there is any 'prior art' if we don't know the method?
[quote=ThunderDawg;198732]I could re-install GIMPS if that helps :smile:[/quote]
I don't think anybody here cares so much about your participation in GIMPS that they'd not help you because you aren't running GIMPS.

I have trouble imagining a system where a human looking at a visual representation of something that results in a 'prime' or 'not prime' result can process and comprehend it faster and more accurately than a computer. If you want any assistance at all, you have to publish your results. This is mathematics. You don't really have to worry about somebody stealing it. In general, only cranks (or the inexperienced, which I'll admit may simply be the case) behave like you do have to worry about it being stolen. There are no patents for mathematical truths. If you want to publish it in a place that records who invented it and publicly stores your theory, you could use [URL="http://arxiv.org/"]arXiv.org[/URL].
See [URL]http://primes.utm.edu/notes/crackpot.html#establish[/URL] for some basic info on the subject.

Thank you.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198732]I will not reveal this in its entirety until I have perfected it to
my satisfaction, and claimed this as an [B]Original Idea[/B].[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm not interested in the method at the moment. I'd just like to see one of the large primes that it creates, so that I could verify (1) that it works at all, and (2) that the primes it generates are indeed large.

Many posters on this forum have suggested methods that do not work. Further, if the method works but can only generate small primes like 1936593751828819 it's probably not worth spending much time on it.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198732]If you have knowledge of PRIOR ART, is all I care about.[/QUOTE]

You haven't given us enough information about your method to allow us to answer that. (I don't mind, because I'm unlikely to search the literature without some reason to think the method works. But if someone else was more credulous, they still wouldn't be able to do the search with the information you have given.)

For one thing, it's not even clear whether you are claiming a compositeness test (like Rabin's test), a primality test (like ECPP), a sieve (like Atkin-Bernstein), or something else.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198732]It was a 1M x 1M image, ...[/QUOTE]Where can I buy the monitor you used to view that image?

[QUOTE=retina;198755]Where can I buy the monitor you used to view that image?[/QUOTE]

You could use a multi-monitor layout. Half a billion dollars of these
[url]http://www.amazon.com/NEC-LCD3090WQXi-BK-30-Inch-Widescreen-Resolution/dp/B0013DJ31A[/url]
would do it.

I clearly meant 1k x 1k >.<


I am going to spend some time using Cornell's arXiv,
before my crackpot rating goes through the roof.


thanks for all your help. /thread

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198767]I clearly meant 1k x 1k >.< [/QUOTE]

I actually thought you intended 1M x 1M...

A 1k x 1k image is still fairly impressive. It could encode (in monochrome) a prime around 300th place in [url=http://primes.utm.edu/primes/home.php]Chris Caldwell's list[/url].

I'd still like to see one of the primes you've generated, if not the method. Good luck with the arXiv.

A Word of Advice for the OP
 

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198767]I clearly meant 1k x 1k >.<


I am going to spend some time using Cornell's arXiv,
before my crackpot rating goes through the roof.


thanks for all your help. /thread[/QUOTE]

Ummm....you realize you need to be endorsed to publish on the arXiv right?
And ummmm....in order to be endorsed your manuscript MUST be mathematically coherent.

Just keep that in mind.

Thanks.

I am going to try to lower my crackpot rating by being less paranoid. :smile: I think I might be able to explain it in less than 5,000 words.



I used to play math challenges at curiousmath and this is one that I won. Google "One Million Light Bulbs", but for some reason, it takes you to page 2 :-\

Whatever. It went thusly:

[QUOTE]Picture this, you have an array of 1,000,000 light bulbs, numbered 1 to 1,000,000, all of which are off (and all of which work).

The following task involves these light bulbs and an action we'll call "flipping". Flipping simply means changing the state of a light bulb. If the bulb is off, flipping will turn it on. If the bulb is on, flipping it will turn it off.
Starting with all the light bulbs off, you start at bulb #1, and flip the state of every bulb. Once you've done that, you go back and start with bulb #2, flipping the state of every [I]second[/I] bulb. Next, you go back, start with bulb #3, and flip the state of every [I]third[/I] bulb.

This continues all the way up to 1,000,000, where you flip the state of every "millionth" bulb (obviously, just the one bulb).

Here's the question: After performing this massive task, which light bulbs will be on, and which light bulbs will be off?[/QUOTE]

I think I used a Perl script to I solve it, but I also wanted to come up with a manual method of solving it, and I created a spreadsheet that calculated each value for a 100 x 100 array. The 1k x 1k calculations weren't even necessary. I could just continue the trend that showed itself.

Then I noticed something unusual: the "On" bulbs were pointing to Primes, not just one or two, but all of them (it was very difficult to not say that in allcaps, so I hope I get at least one point reduction in my crackpot score).

If you wish to recreate the 100 x 100 spreadsheet, use Number formatting with red positive numbers, make the -0-s invisible, 0 decimals and shrink the columns down as far as you can. Zoom to 25% or lower. I used formulae to calculate ever "On" and "Off" - you'll have to do that yourself.

If you are a True Prime Nerd, you will see it. Wall[SIZE=4]á.
[/SIZE]
This I did with only the 100 x 100 matrix. The 1000 x 1000 no longer needs calculations. You can just repeat the trend going on. This is also true for 1m x 1m, etcetera. I hope you have scrollbars. I have checked all Primes under 1 million and spot checked many under one billion. I still haven't made the leap to a billion digits, but it's not far off, imho. I was wrong earlier, I haven't worked on this for 3 years, it's closer to four.

Wait. No. Make only Prime Numbers [COLOR=red][B]red[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=black]. I only did this as a lark. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]But you can't miss it. They form a pattern among the "On" Bulbs. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE=flouran;198776]And ummmm....in order to be endorsed your manuscript MUST be mathematically coherent.[/QUOTE]

If only that were true.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198783]If you wish to recreate the 100 x 100 spreadsheet, use Number formatting with red positive numbers, make the -0-s invisible, 0 decimals and shrink the columns down as far as you can. Zoom to 25% or lower. I used formulae to calculate ever "On" and "Off" - you'll have to do that yourself.[/QUOTE]

Well, what you've developed is correct. More specifically, it's a sieve that can discover the primes below n in time roughly n log n log log n. It's an excellent method, essentially the same as that developed by Eratosthenes. Modern improvements to the sieve (using the theory of binary quadratic forms) can make it run in sublinear time.

If you look at the "sidewalk", to the right each ([COLOR=red]red[/COLOR]) Prime occurs at every stop sign. Right of that, no Primes exist.

To the left, they follow a straight line. Left of those is more jumbled, but all other ([COLOR=red]red[/COLOR]) primes are there. The time I have spent was mostly figuring out how to predict those irregular looking ones. But they are All "On".

[IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/2ij2j46.jpg[/IMG]

[quote=CRGreathouse;198788]Well, what you've developed is correct. More specifically, it's a sieve that can discover the primes below n in time roughly n log n log log n. It's an excellent method, essentially the same as that developed by Eratosthenes. Modern improvements to the sieve (using the theory of binary quadratic forms) can make it run in sublinear time.[/quote]

Well, that answers the OPQ, or at least narrows down my search.

Thanks for your time.

The challenge calls for flipping beginning on every bulb. This is not a prime sieve, and as far as I can tell it's not how you've interpreted it. How did you interpret it? The question could be modified to be the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes"]Sieve of Eratosthenes[/URL], but as it is this is not one. Here's what that sieve would look like, phrased like the original question:
[quote]Picture this, you have an array of 1,000,000 light bulbs, numbered 1 to 1,000,000, all of which are on.

First, turn off bulb #1, since 1 isn't considered a prime. Then, you start at bulb #2, and turn off every [I]second[/I] bulb after bulb #2. Once you've done that, you go back and start with the next bulb that's on, bulb #3, and turn off every [I]third[/I] bulb after bulb #3. Next, you'll see that bulb #4 is off, skip it, see that bulb #5 is on, and turn off #10, #15, ...

Continue up to bulb #1,000,000.

Here's the question: After performing this massive task, which light bulbs will be on, and which light bulbs will be off? [/quote]This only has to continue up to bulb #1000, (the square root of 1,000,000) because every composite less than or equal to 1,000,000 must have at least one multiple less than or equal to 1,000.
The prime number's lights will be on, and only the prime number's lights.
Note that this works, and has been known for a very long time, but is only useful for generating large lists of relatively small primes, not for generating very large primes, and that more efficient (and more complex) algorithms are known, like the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Atkin"]Sieve of Atkin[/URL].

Now back to the original problem:
The problem ends with all lights corresponding to square numbers on, and all other lights off.
Why? Each number starts with its light off, and changes each time you reach a divisor of the number (including one and the number itself), so if there is an odd number of divisors, the light will flip an odd number of times and end in the on position. If there is an even number of divisors, the light will flip an even number of times and end in the off position.
Now the question is: what numbers have an odd number of divisors? Square numbers are the only numbers with an odd number of divisors.
To see why this is, look at a listing of the divisors of a number, like 36 (a square number): 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36. Notice how each divisor is paired with another, like 1 and 36 (36=1*36) or 9 and 4 (36=4*9), except for 6, which is paired with itself (36=6*6). Only squares have such an unpaired divisor, so only they have an odd number of divisors, so only they have their lights left on.

I worked this manually up to 20:[code]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 - the numbers
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - starting state
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - flipping starting at 1
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 - flipping starting at 2
1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 - and so on...
1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - flipping starting at 11 through 20
[/code](1 means on, 0 means off)
Note the ones that are on: 1, 4, 9, 16. Notice anything about those? :smile:
Since the interest is on primes, I'll point out the unique thing about them: they only switch twice, once on (at 1) and once off (at the number itself). This is a direct consequence of what I mentioned above: each number/bulb is flipped on each divisor. Since the only divisors a prime has is, by definition, one and itself, it only flips twice.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198783]

[quote]Starting with all the light bulbs off, you start at bulb #1, and flip the state of every bulb. Once you've done that, you go back and start with bulb #2, flipping the state of every [I]second[/I] bulb. Next, you go back, start with bulb #3, and flip the state of every [I]third[/I] bulb.[/quote][/quote]The result depends crucially on the exact meaning of "start with bulb #N, and flip the state of every [I]Nth[/I] bulb".

However, the following example seems to clarify that:
[quote]This continues all the way up to 1,000,000, where you flip the state of every "millionth" bulb (obviously, just the one bulb)[/quote]So, bulb #N is to be flipped, as well as every Nth bulb [I]after[/I] bulb #N.

As Mini-Geek points out, the array wins up with only the squares ON, and two rule changes are necessary to change the algorithm to a prime-finder.

Suppose we make just one of those rule changes. What do we get?

If we change only the rule that when we start at bulb #N, then bulb #N itself is flipped, (i.e., changed to not flipping bulb #N, but flip every Nth bulb after bulb #N) we get:

[code]1 OFF
2 ON
3 ON
4 OFF
5 ON
6 ON
7 ON
8 ON
9 OFF
10 ON[/code]All the squares wind up OFF, all nonsquares ON. (A sieve for nonsquares :-)

If we change only the rule that any bulb can be flipped, regardless of whether it's ON -- to -- flip a bulb only if it's ON, we get:

[code]1 OFF
2 OFF
3 OFF
4 OFF

. . .[/code]All bulbs stay OFF!

If we change only the rule that any bulb can be flipped, regardless of whether it's ON -- to -- flip a bulb only if it's OFF, we get:

[code]1 ON
2 ON
3 ON
4 ON

. . .[/code]All bulbs stay ON once they've been flipped ON, which occurs during the first pass.

Not too interesting in the latter two cases.

It is not really comparable to Eratosthenes. He used a very elementary process of elimination. I have completely skipped that process. Granted, I checked them against known primes that were discovered thousands of years ago. If mine is an extension of that sieve, then I haven't wasted all this time.

But there is the little matter of getting past those relatively tiny numbers.

If my model can predict their location, the problem is finding really large ones in an image too large to load or view. But since the pattern is known, maybe I can develop a peephole where these enormous images are no longer necessary. Just like a telescope views faraway galaxies. I know, my crackpot rating just shot up again. But, think about it, we don't see planets in faraway star systems, we can only see the wobble of the star's light. Yeccchhh. Bad analogy.

How exactly do you decide whether a light stays on or off, and how exactly are you pointing out the ones that are primes? Because it's obviously not by the terms of the original question, or by terms equating it to Eratosthenes' sieve.
I'd like to see the spreadsheet in addition to your explanation of how it works. That way I can see what you're seeing, and whether it's doing what you're thinking it's doing. You might be able to attach it directly, or put it in a .zip and attach it, or upload it somewhere like [URL="http://www.sendspace.com/"]SendSpace[/URL] and give us the link.

I think that once we know what's going on we can equate the visual pattern to a formula. Once it's in the form of a formula, it can be brought to enormous proportions far more easily than an image, and can be crunched by computers instead of inspected by humans. But most importantly: the question is if this is correct, and if so, if it's useful. Once we can all understand what you're seeing, we should be able to answer those questions.

You know, Einstein was a crackpot. Most of his contemporaries vehemently disagreed with him. Same as many others whose great discoveries were loudly proclaimed as fail, and then went on to become leaders of their field long after they were dead. They refused to believe in the impossible. And they were critical thinkers.

Short Story: The Medical Profession was begun as a Protectionist mantra so Male doctors could make more money than Female midwives and wet nurses. Today, the Medical Profession only knows what they are told: Throw drugs around like candy, to feed the Phamaceutical industry, and run as many tests as possible, to avoid the legal profession. They long ago gave up on telling you that what you consume kills you. There's a drug for that. The Math profession is no different. They seriously don't want isolated hermits like me solving old probelms like the guy who solved the Poincaré conjecture.

To tell you the Truth, I would rather be in the company of the Few who didn't listen to the Nattering Nabobs of Nepotism.

CrackPot JackPot! Ding Ding Ding Ding!

But since you have been the most helpful Mini-Geek, I will send it to you via pm eventually.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198881]But since you have been the most helpful Mini-Geek, I will send it to you via pm eventually.[/QUOTE]

I strongly recommend having someone [B]well-versed in number theory[/B] to look over your alleged "discovery"...

[quote=flouran;198882]I strongly recommend having someone [B]well-versed in number theory[/B] to look over your alleged "discovery"...[/quote]


Well, Hmpph.

I strongly recommend you stop working on my Last Good Nerve.


And GooBack to your Troll Factory.

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198883]
I strongly recommend you stop working on my Last Good Nerve.
[/QUOTE]
You never had any good nerves.
[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198883]
And GooBack to your Troll Factory.[/QUOTE]
You're a moron. Don't mistake me for you.

"Troll Alert: I have done my absolute best to try to ignore this obvious Troll. I was as polite as I am capable of being in all my previous posts. I am sorry but he got the best of me on page 2. I thought this version of vBull had a p:ignore option: power ignore, where he can't ruin my internet experience."

[QUOTE=ThunderDawg;198888]"Troll Alert: I have done my absolute best to try to ignore this obvious Troll. I was as polite as I am capable of being in all my previous posts. I am sorry but he got the best of me on page 2. I thought this version of vBull had a p:ignore option: power ignore, where he can't ruin my internet experience."[/QUOTE]

You have complete control over CHOOSING to have your internet experience ruined. But I guess morons can't and won't ever learn.

Mini-Geek, cheesehead, CRGreathouse, cmd, and even you retina, have all been helpful with your critical assessment and devil's advocacy. [Edit] Well, retina added a much needed comic relief, which I always condone and admire =D [/Edit]

Mini-Geek has been most helpful, I think he gave me much insight and the inertia to keep going. Possibly even a breakthrough, but I can't know for sure just yet.

Glad I could be of service.

[size=1][color=#808080]I just hope no one steals my method and becomes a rich and famous hot chick magnet instead of me. :doh!::down::censored::cry:[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=retina;198892]

[size=1][color=#808080]I just hope no one steals my method and becomes a rich and famous hot chick magnet instead of me. :doh!::down::censored::cry:[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

Don't be so modest. You ARE a hot chick magnet already :wink:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198869]It is not really comparable to Eratosthenes. He used a very elementary process of elimination. I have completely skipped that process.[/quote]So far as I can tell, you've told us that your process was inspired by the "One Million Light Bulbs" challenge at curiousmath:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198783]I used to play math challenges at curiousmath and this is one that I won. Google "One Million Light Bulbs", but for some reason, it takes you to page 2 :-\

Whatever. It went thusly:[/quote]We have pointed out that the "One Million Light Bulbs" method is, with a couple of detail corrections, computationally equivalent to the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

Then you seemed to say that your current process is an extension of that method:
[quote]I think I used a Perl script to I solve it, but I also wanted to come up with a manual method of solving it, and I created a spreadsheet that calculated each value for a 100 x 100 array. The 1k x 1k calculations weren't even necessary. I could just continue the trend that showed itself.

Then I noticed something unusual: the "On" bulbs were pointing to Primes, not just one or two, but all of them[/quote]You've seemed to say that your work was on a version of the "One Million Light Bulbs" method that you extended to higher numbers, with the particular feature that you use your own visual scan to locate the primes on a graph of the method's result, going by the geometric patterns evident there:

[quote]If you wish to recreate the 100 x 100 spreadsheet, use Number formatting with red positive numbers, make the -0-s invisible, 0 decimals and shrink the columns down as far as you can. Zoom to 25% or lower. I used formulae to calculate ever "On" and "Off" - you'll have to do that yourself.

If you are a True Prime Nerd, you will see it. Wall[SIZE=4]á.
[/SIZE]
This I did with only the 100 x 100 matrix. The 1000 x 1000 no longer needs calculations. You can just repeat the trend going on. This is also true for 1m x 1m, etcetera.[/quote]Though you use vision to pick out the primes, it doesn't change the essential computational method use to produce the graph. That method is equivalent to the Sieve of Eratosthenes. Your use of vision to find points on the graph is essentially no different from looking at a string of numbers resulting from the Sieve of Eratosthenes and picking out the numbers not crossed off, because those numbers are the same ones that correspond to the graph points you pick out.

[quote=ThunderDawg;198869]If mine is an extension of that sieve, then I haven't wasted all this time.[/quote]Your feature of visual picking-out may seem different from, and faster than, the usual descriptions of using the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but it really isn't. A modern computer can pick out those numbers (the primes, that is) from the SoE result at the rate of hundreds of thousands or more per second, far faster than any person can do so visually. So, depending on your use of "extension", you haven't wasted your time.

BTW, almost everyone with good math ability finds that something he/she discovered or figured out independently when young later turns out to be a piece of historically known mathematics. E.g., when I was about age 8-9, I came up with a method that I later learned was equivalent to modular arithmetic.

It's no shame for someone to independently derive a good mathematical method that turns out to have already been well-known in the math community; that just shows that one has genuine talent for thinking logically about math. OTOH, when one converses on the Internet, one is almost certain to encounter cynics who will emphasize the lack of novelty to math in general while not giving one credit for the genuine novelty it is to the particular person who came up with the new-to-[I]themselves[/I] result.

Unfortunately, at any on-line math forum, there are inevitably some egotistical individuals who, not knowing the full history of math, come in boasting of a revolutionary idea they've thought up [I]and rejecting any suggestion that their idea is already well-known[/I]. The latter, when pushy, are deemed "crackpots". The difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot may be their unwillingness or willingness, respectively, to learn how their ideas match up with what was, previously unbeknownst to them, already a firmly-established part of mathematics.

Equally unfortunately, forums sometimes have individuals who are overly-eager to throw the "crackpot" flag rather than simply and educationally show how the newbie's idea fits into the established mathematical world.

[quote]But there is the little matter of getting past those relatively tiny numbers.

If my model can predict their location, the problem is finding really large ones in an image too large to load or view.[/quote]Yes, but it needs to be understood that modern computers can hold in their memories arrays of numbers that vastly exceed the ability of humans to process visually as fast as the computer can process numerically.

However, the idea of using human pattern-recognition to guide computers [U]is[/U] applicable to the field of "expert system software". (For instance, human chess grandmasters have been consultants to the developers of chess-playing computers.)

[quote]But since the pattern is known, maybe I can develop a peephole where these enormous images are no longer necessary. Just like a telescope views faraway galaxies. I know, my crackpot rating just shot up again. But, think about it, we don't see planets in faraway star systems, we can only see the wobble of the star's light. Yeccchhh. Bad analogy.[/quote]Actually, as someone with a long-term interest in astronomy who seriously considered doing it as a profession, I'd say your analogy is okay.

[QUOTE=flouran;198896]Don't be so modest. You ARE a hot chick magnet already :wink:[/QUOTE]Well of course, but I want to be a rich and famous one also. :razz:

[size=1]PS: Please tell all the hot chicks that I am a hot chick magnet. So far none of them seem to have realised it. :sad:[/size]

[quote=cheesehead;198900]The difference between a crackpot and a non-crackpot may be their unwillingness or willingness, respectively, to learn how their ideas match up with what was, previously unbeknownst to them, already a firmly-established part of mathematics.[/quote]

My whole point was to speed up the process of figuring out whether there is firmly established prior knowledge. I call it prior art, but that is a misnomer. That is a legal term referring to copyright law, which has been established as moot.

If you worked 8-10 hours a day (for money), then came home and worked another 8-10 hours, wouldn't you want your baby to have all its fingers and toes? :uncwilly:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;198900]BTW, almost everyone with good math ability finds that something he/she discovered or figured out independently when young later turns out to be a piece of historically known mathematics. E.g., when I was about age 8-9, I came up with a method that I later learned was equivalent to modular arithmetic.[/QUOTE]

I 'invented' a divisibility test equivalent to long division, and later triangular numbers. :smile:

[quote=retina;198904]
[SIZE=1]PS: Please tell all the hot chicks that I am a hot chick magnet. So far none of them seem to have realised it. :sad:[/SIZE][/quote]
Since I know so many hot chicks and they tend to talk to me first, I will be sure not to tell them anything :razz:

[quote=ThunderDawg;198915]My whole point was to speed up the process of figuring out whether there is firmly established prior knowledge.[/quote]... and one of my points, perhaps not well stated, is that your quest for prior knowledge marks you as _not_ a "crackpot".