extreme crank, english challenged, braindead idiot, rotchm defecated:

> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 8:10:13 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 9:13:48 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>
>
>> > I am trying to hint you that the OP's problem is much simpler than it
>> > looks. I am trying to convince you to *ponder* it, to work at it via
>> > a different approach. Inspiring one to work "harder" or "differently"
>> > is not being an
>>> "asshole". But I do get it that simple minds may think so.
>>
>> No, imbecile, you are using the down-play game.
>
> No I am not. But I admit that it *looks* like it.

go report this, idiot

https://groups.google.com/g/baunes_discussions/c/JqeGrfRlgrQ X Baunes's
profile photo, Jun 26, 2010, 7:38:49 PM to Baunes_Discussions Testing...

sa...@comcast.net unread, Oct 17, 2013, 4:56:01 AM to
baunes_di...@googlegroups.com On Saturday, June 26, 2010 11:38:49 AM
UTC-7, X Baunes wrote:
Testing...

Stephane Baune, aka the *"rotchm"* pretentious ignorant.

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/discussions-3 Contents

1 On the meaning of Law (of physics) and the principle of relativity.
2 On the various formulations of the principle of relativity of
Special relativity.
3 On the Second Postulate of special relativity 4 Coordinate system
and (Inertial) reference frame 5 What's a PARADOX?
6 Bug-Rivet Paradox 7 Bell's spaceship paradox 8 Math: Discovered or
invented?
9 A Shot at the Arrow of Time 10 The Sandow Theorem 11 The 2-Piecewise
Function

Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And One,
Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
Favorite TV stations: PBS.
Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
WWE RAW, ...
Favorite Movies: ...
Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
and putting my nose where it does not belong...
( because it just smells so good

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities

https://www.academia.edu/37679452/
Jean_de_Climont_The_worldwide_list_of_dissident_scienticts_1_500_Part_1_pdf

lots of mathematics:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0038v1.pdf
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune

2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
(Read in full)
2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame Theory:
A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)

Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
posting-account=BHsbrQoAAAANJj6HqXJ987nOEDAC1EsJ
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.160.32.227
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Message-ID: <5877d8ef-d903-43b6-9daf-d3efe17829c2n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: OT: One for David Fuller
From: rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com>

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 08-Nov-21 10:25 am, rotchm wrote:
> The interesting part of the problem space is where the number of bits is
> in the order of 2^(M * N), rather than that the bits equal M * N. One is
> trying to discover M * N where the number of bits in M * N is in the
> hundreds or thousands.
>
> In such a case, if one could discover y for some x, one would have a
> possible answer. Fortunately for RSA, y would generally be so large that
> it could not be represented in any plausible computer, let alone be
> calculated.

you are talking with an imbecile, and you both don's understand the
problem, and computers.

On 09-Nov-21 7:14 am, Gregor Bicha wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> On 08-Nov-21 10:25 am, rotchm wrote:
>> The interesting part of the problem space is where the number of bits is
>> in the order of 2^(M * N), rather than that the bits equal M * N. One is
>> trying to discover M * N where the number of bits in M * N is in the
>> hundreds or thousands.
>>
>> In such a case, if one could discover y for some x, one would have a
>> possible answer. Fortunately for RSA, y would generally be so large that
>> it could not be represented in any plausible computer, let alone be
>> calculated.
>
> you are talking with an imbecile, and you both don's understand the
> problem, and computers.
>

I take it you're a Hertz sock-puppet.

Sylvia.

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:09:00 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 09-Nov-21 7:14 am, Gregor Bicha wrote:

<snip>

> I take it you're a Hertz sock-puppet.
>
> Sylvia.

Why do you put me in the middle of an argument between Bicha and raemsch, Sylvia?

Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much more than what I could care.

I don't have any issue with raemsch so far. I didn't expect a comment like that coming from you.

On 11/8/2021 5:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:09:00 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 09-Nov-21 7:14 am, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I take it you're a Hertz sock-puppet.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Why do you put me in the middle of an argument between Bicha and raemsch, Sylvia?

Why do you think Raemsch is involved? The discussion was about your
objection to super large numbers. Also the nymshifter "Bicha" mentioned
'talking with an imbecile' which can apply equally to either Raemsch or
yourself....
>
> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much more than what I could care.

Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
possible.

So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> you are talking with an imbecile, and you both don's understand the
>> problem, and computers.
>
> I take it you're a Hertz sock-puppet.

read his "papers". He is a stupid crackpot. I were you, would be ashamed
talking to the idiot. He is a braindead idiot.

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/physics/discussions-3 Contents

1 On the meaning of Law (of physics) and the principle of relativity.
2 On the various formulations of the principle of relativity of
Special relativity.
3 On the Second Postulate of special relativity 4 Coordinate system
and (Inertial) reference frame 5 What's a PARADOX?
6 Bug-Rivet Paradox 7 Bell's spaceship paradox 8 Math: Discovered or
invented?
9 A Shot at the Arrow of Time 10 The Sandow Theorem 11 The 2-Piecewise
Function

Music: Nurse With Wound, Current93, Skinny Puppy, The Residents, And One,
Vive la fete, Beruriuer Noir ...
Favorite online music channels: Doomed, Tormented radio...
Favorite TV stations: PBS.
Favorite TV shows: Cyberchase, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Simpsons, House,
WWE RAW, ...
Favorite Movies: ...
Extra interests: Wandering the streets, observing, interacting
and putting my nose where it does not belong...
( because it just smells so good

https://sites.google.com/site/baunes/activities

https://www.academia.edu/37679452/
Jean_de_Climont_The_worldwide_list_of_dissident_scienticts_1_500_Part_1_pdf

lots of mathematics:
https://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0038v1.pdf
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune

2011 - "Superluminal and negative velocities according to ether theory"
(Read in full)
2009 - "Faster Than the Brighter-Light Beacon"
2009 - "Time for Another Paradox"
2006 - "[[Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame
Theory: A Theoretical Distinction: UPDATE]]" (Read in full)
2005 - "Theory of Special Relativity vs. Preferred Reference Frame Theory:
A Theoretical Distinction" (Read in full)

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much
>> more than what I could care.
>
> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
> possible.
>
> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.

you too are an idiot. I don't know your nymshifting trolls. I must
insist. You are an idiot. I've been here for a few days.

On 09-Nov-21 9:44 am, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 11/8/2021 5:23 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:09:00 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 09-Nov-21 7:14 am, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I take it you're a Hertz sock-puppet.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> Why do you put me in the middle of an argument between Bicha and
>> raemsch, Sylvia?
>
> Why do you think Raemsch is involved? The discussion was about your
> objection to super large numbers. Also the nymshifter "Bicha" mentioned
> 'talking with an imbecile' which can apply equally to either Raemsch or
> yourself....
>>
>> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch
>> much more than what I could care.
>
> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
> possible.
>
> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.

OK, I'll defer to you on this.

I just thought the sentiments expressed were rather similar to those of
Hertz.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:

>> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
>> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
>> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
>> possible.
>>
>> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.
>
> OK, I'll defer to you on this.
>
> I just thought the sentiments expressed were rather similar to those of
> Hertz.

listen Sylvia, if you can't see rotchm is a braindead crackpot troll, how
can it be my fault?? Such is morony, crackpot too, never wrote a paper
and anything. What I read, morony truly believes in manned moon landing
1969. They are crackpots, trolls and morons.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 08-nov.-2021 om 18:33 schreef Richard Hertz:
>>> Exactly the reason why you're here.
>>> And they all stepped right in your turd.
>>> What a bunch of children you found here.
>>> Congratulations!
>>
>> My reason to be here is to
>
> ... have fights with the other kids.
> And you are very successful at it. Congratulations.

Chinese astronauts complete space walk outside future space station
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DO3JsGX353I/

Two Chinese astronauts have completed a several-hour-long space walk
outside the Tiangong space station. The mission was notable for featuring
China’s first woman astronaut to perform the out-of-this-world procedure.

Wang Yeping was joined by fellow astronaut Zhai Zhigang, another of the
three-person team currently aboard China’s latest space station. The two
successfully completed the 6.5-hour spacewalk in the early hours of
Monday morning, according to the China Manned Space Agency.

The pair disembarked from the main module of the Tiangong station on a
spacewalk that lasted over six hours. They carried out tests alongside
the station’s robotic arm and installed equipment for part of the
station’s ongoing construction.

A third astronaut, Ye Guangfu, assisted the duo from inside the station.
State broadcaster CCTV shared footage of the astronauts carrying out
their tasks and floating in space.

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 7:09:00 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> I take it you're a Hertz sock-puppet.

I thought that you was talking about the meaning 1) about sock-puppet, but now I understand that you use the 2nd. meaning.

Good for me to know. Now I have a better idea of you, like in the Paul's case, of whom I believed on his good nature.

It takes a while, but the inner person always shows up, in one way or another.

sock puppet
noun: sock puppet

1. a person whose actions are controlled by another.

*2. a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views.

On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:38:38 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 4:15:41 PM UTC-3, Gregor Bicha wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Sure. Watch:
> > > 3.1415926535897 + 0.932384626433832E-15 + 0.795028841971693E-30 +
> > > 0.554687311595628E-915 + 0.638823537875937E-930 + 0.519577818577805E-945
> > > + 0.321712268066130E-960 + 0.019278766111959E-975 +
> > > 0.092164201989380E-990 + 0.952572010654858E-1005 + 0.63279E-1020
> > you are a highly intelligent man, the last line tells me you copied the
> > numbers from my line. Do it with 2048 decimals. And give the formula.
> Einstein, the fucker peacock, used to say by 1907: "You do the trick, but you are not obliged to show derivations or original sources,
> because I say so. I'm not going to provide you proofs of fudging AND plagiarism. I have a career to develop with this shit".
>
> Ask to Dono, the reptilian lifeform who worship Einstein (as most do, here) to provide a solution. After all, he's a BsC in Mathematics
> (he claims) and he has his famous Wolfram Mathematica software, which he used here extensively. Not Excel or MATLAB.

Pi = SUMk=0 to infinity 16E-k [ 4/(8k+1) – 2/(8k+4) – 1/(8k+5) – 1/(8k+6) ]

gives PI with the 15 digits precision that a 64 bit FPU can produce in 10 steps, from k= 0 to k=9 (in Excel).

Also, can provide any arbitrary Nth. digit of PI, without depending on previous digits.

You want 1 trillion digits, you have them. Only takes time and conversion for Hexadecimal to Decimal. Fastest algorithm since the '90s.

https://www.davidhbailey.com/dhbpapers/digits.pdf

The nym-shifting troll, aka Gregor Bicha wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much
>>> more than what I could care.
>>
>> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
>> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
>> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
>> possible.
>>
>> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.
>
> you too are an idiot. I don't know your nymshifting trolls. I must
> insist. You are an idiot. I've been here for a few days.

Sure. Idiot.

User-Agent: Evolution/2.31 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2

Python <python@python.invalid> wrote:
> The nym-shifting troll, aka Gregor Bicha wrote:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much
>>>> more than what I could care.
>>>
>>> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
>>> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
>>> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.
>>
>> you too are an idiot. I don't know your nymshifting trolls. I must
>> insist. You are an idiot. I've been here for a few days.
>
> Sure. Idiot.
>
> User-Agent: Evolution/2.31 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0)
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
>

Win NT 6.1?

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Op 09-nov.-2021 om 11:40 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Python <python@python.invalid> wrote:
>> The nym-shifting troll, aka Gregor Bicha wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much
>>>>> more than what I could care.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
>>>> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
>>>> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.
>>>
>>> you too are an idiot. I don't know your nymshifting trolls. I must
>>> insist. You are an idiot. I've been here for a few days.
>>
>> Sure. Idiot.
>>
>> User-Agent: Evolution/2.31 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0)
>> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
>>
>
> Win NT 6.1?

Windows 7

Win NT 6.0 = Windows Vista
Win NT 6.1 = Windows 7
Win NT 6.2 = Windows 8
Win NT 6.3 = Windows 8.1

Dirk Vdm

On 11/9/2021 5:40 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Python <python@python.invalid> wrote:
>> The nym-shifting troll, aka Gregor Bicha wrote:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Obviously, he has been here for many years and knows about raemsch much
>>>>> more than what I could care.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, "Bicha" is the latest incarnation of the nymshifting troll,
>>>> who actually has been here for years (under hundreds of nyms), and its
>>>> only purpose is to disrupt discussions and generate as much noise as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> So Sylvia, no, it's not a Hertz sockpuppet, just the nymshifting troll.
>>>
>>> you too are an idiot. I don't know your nymshifting trolls. I must
>>> insist. You are an idiot. I've been here for a few days.
>>
>> Sure. Idiot.
>>
>> User-Agent: Evolution/2.31 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0)
>> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
>>
>
> Win NT 6.1?
>
That's actually rather tame for the nymshifter. It has used some
bizarre beauts as its User-Agent in the past.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Win NT 6.1?
>>
> That's actually rather tame for the nymshifter. It has used some
> bizarre beauts as its User-Agent in the past.

nymshifter is not even an English substantive. Go back to Montenegro or
Kosova.

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Sure. Idiot.
>>
>> User-Agent: Evolution/2.31 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0)
>> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
>
> Win NT 6.1?

yet another relativity lover, incompetent in operating systems, thinking
NT stopped at 4.0.

Python wrote:

>> you too are an idiot. I don't know your nymshifting trolls. I must
>> insist. You are an idiot. I've been here for a few days.
>
> Sure. Idiot.
> User-Agent: Evolution/2.31 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:68.0)

another individual incapable setting up evolution in windoze 7. Ask
politely, idiot.

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 1:15:24 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, November 6, 2021 at 12:00:39 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > For any odd number x, there exists another odd number y, such that the
> > product of x and y expressed in binary is a contiguous sequence of 1s,
> > though I'll express them in hex.
> >
> > For example
> > 3 * 1 = 3
> > 5 * 3 = f
> > 7 * 9 = 3f
> > 9 * 7 = 3f
> > 11 * 93 = 3ff
> > 13 * 315 = fff
> >
> > 97 * 816785180559426160758185055 = FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
> >
> > Sylvia.
> If a, b and c are integers > 0 or 1, this is the equation to solve:
>
> (2a - 1).(2b - 1) = 2ᶜ - 1
>
> x = (2a - 1) , x: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, .... ; a: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ......
> y = (2b - 1) , y: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, .... ; b: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ......
>
> ----------------
>
> 4ab - 2a - 2b + 1 = 2ᶜ - 1
>
> 4ab - 2a - 2b + 2 = 2ᶜ
>
> This is an equation with two independent variables (a and b) and a linked parameter c, which should be c = c(a,b).
>
> If there are solutions, it could be an infinite number of them. To test it, fix a with an arbitrary number for a (I choose prime numbers):
>
> *** a = 3 gives: 12b - 6 - 2b + 2 = 2ᶜ
>
> 10b - 4 = 2ᶜ
>
> c. log₂ 2 = log₂ (10b - 4)
>
> If p = log₂ n, then 2ᵖ = n. For this, log₂ 2 = 1 and
>
> c = log₂ (10b - 4) , c: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, .....
>
> only find a solution for c = 4 and b = 2. The rest of values of c are irrational numbers from an Excel equation y = 1.6049 ln(x) + 2.854
>
> *** Trying another value for b, choosing a = 37 gives
>
> 4.37.b - 2.37 - 2b + 2 = 2ᶜ
> 146 b - 72 = 2ᶜ
>
> c = log₂ (146 b - 72) , c: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, .....
>
> only find a solution for c = 9 and b = 4. The rest of values of c are irrational numbers from an Excel equation y = 1,6551 ln(x) + 6,5807
>
> It seems that to solve (a, b, c), a not analytical method to search and discard is required, using a small program. But two variables
> in a function c(a,b) makes impossible (IMHO) to obtain a general solution.. Maybe relating b to a could provide an equation, but
> the search for values of c that are integer require a program, anyway.
>
> Hope this can help.

I've found this relationship that verifies the problem for any value of N: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ......

a = 2^N, b = a + 1 and c = 2N +2

It seems to hold for very high numbers in:

(2a - 1).(2b - 1) = 2ᶜ - 1
x = (2a - 1) , x: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, .... ; a: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ......
y = (2b - 1) , y: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, .... ; b: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ......

It can be observed in the sequence (N, a, b, c) AND (x, y, x.y):

(N, a, b, c): (0, 1, 2, 2) AND (x , y , x.v): (1, 3, 3)
(N, a, b, c): (1, 2, 3, 4) AND (x , y , x.v): (3, 5, 15)
(N, a, b, c): (2, 4, 5, 6) AND (x , y , x.v): (7, 9, 63)
(N, a, b, c): (3, 8, 9, 8) AND (x , y , x.v): (15, 17, 255)
(N, a, b, c): (4, 16, 17, 10) AND (x , y , x.v): (31, 33, 1023)
(N, a, b, c): (5, 32, 33, 12) AND (x , y , x.v): (63, 65, 4095)
(N, a, b, c): (6, 64, 65, 14) AND (x , y , x.v): (127, 129, 16383)
(N, a, b, c): (7, 128, 129, 16) AND (x , y , x.v): (255, 257, 65535)
(N, a, b, c): (8, 256, 257, 18) AND (x , y , x.v): (511, 513, 262143)

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 12:51:26 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> I've found this relationship that verifies the problem for any value of N: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ......
> a = 2^N, b = a + 1 and c = 2N +2
>
> It seems to hold for very high numbers in:
> (2a - 1).(2b - 1) = 2ᶜ - 1

It holds for ALL such numbers. See below.

> It can be observed in the sequence (N, a, b, c) AND (x, y, x.y):
> (N, a, b, c): (0, 1, 2, 2) AND (x , y , x.v): (1, 3, 3)
> (N, a, b, c): (1, 2, 3, 4) AND (x , y , x.v): (3, 5, 15)
> (N, a, b, c): (2, 4, 5, 6) AND (x , y , x.v): (7, 9, 63)...

This can easily bee seen by recalling k² - 1 = (k-1)(k+1).
Letting c = 2N + 2 = 2(N+1), thus 2ᶜ - 1 = ( 2^(N+1) - 1 ) * (2^(N+1) + 1) = (2*[2^N] - 1)(2*{ [2^N] + 1} - 1).

Your "a" is [2^N] and "b" is [2^N] + 1

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 4:40:38 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:

<snip>

> > for any value of N: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ......
> > a = 2^N, b = a + 1 and c = 2N +2
> >
> > It seems to hold for very high numbers in:
> > (2a - 1).(2b - 1) = 2ᶜ - 1
> It holds for ALL such numbers. See below.
> > It can be observed in the sequence (N, a, b, c) AND (x, y, x.y):
> > (N, a, b, c): (0, 1, 2, 2) AND (x , y , x.v): (1, 3, 3)
> > (N, a, b, c): (1, 2, 3, 4) AND (x , y , x.v): (3, 5, 15)
> > (N, a, b, c): (2, 4, 5, 6) AND (x , y , x.v): (7, 9, 63)...
>
> This can easily bee seen by recalling k² - 1 = (k-1)(k+1).
> Letting c = 2N + 2 = 2(N+1), thus 2ᶜ - 1 = ( 2^(N+1) - 1 ) * (2^(N+1) + 1) = (2*[2^N] - 1)(2*{ [2^N] + 1} - 1).
>
> Your "a" is [2^N] and "b" is [2^N] + 1

You didn't get what I mean. By very high numbers, I'm referring for N: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ....321, 322, 323, 324.......4587, 4588, 4589,.........
And also, the need to satisfy two equations (1) and (2) simultaneously.

The set (a, b, c) from

(1) a = 2ᴺ, b = a + 1 and c = 2N + 2

ALSO HAS TO VERIFY the original equation from days ago:

(2) c = 1 + log₂ (2ab - a - b + 1)

using (1) in (2) gives (2a), which has a restricted set of values that are compliant (even when the number is infinite)

2ab - a - b + 1 = 2ᴺ (2ᴺ + 1) - 2ᴺ - 2ᴺ - 1 +1 = 2²ᴺ - 2ᴺ = 2ᴺ (2ᴺ - 1)

(2a) c = 1 + log₂ [2ᴺ (2ᴺ - 1)] = 1 + N + log₂ (2ᴺ - 1)

(2a) c = 1 + N + log₂ (2ᴺ - 1), now with values [a = 2ᴺ, b = a + 1 and c = 2N + 2] satisfying (1) and (2).

This set (a, b, c) satisfies (2a), but FAILS to verify (1):

(2, 11, 6)
(2, 43, 8)
(2, 171, 10)
(3, 26, 8)
(3, 410, 12)
(4, 37, 9)
(4, 293, 12)
(5, 228, 12)
(6, 47, 10)
(7, 158, 12)
(8, 137, 12)
(11, 98, 12)
(12, 45, 11)
(18, 59, 12)
(20, 53, 12)
(22, 191, 14)
(23, 46, 12)
(43, 386, 16)
(76, 109, 15)
(200, 329, 18)

Really, it takes me by surprise how prone are you to write "easily".

You should read posts more carefully before replying. Math can be a tricky bitch.

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 7:13:42 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

Typo. This line has to be read as:

> This set (a, b, c) satisfies *** (2) ***, but FAILS to verify (1):

On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 5:13:42 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> You didn't get what I mean.

And, you didn't get what I mean:

You said:
" for any value of N: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...... a = 2^N, b = a + 1 and c = 2N +2
It seems to hold for very high numbers in: (2a - 1).(2b - 1) = 2ᶜ - 1 "

I responded *only* to that.
I am merely pointing out that it not only *seems* to hold for large values of N, but holds for *every* value of N, small and big.

> And also, the need to satisfy two equations (1) and (2) simultaneously.

That is redundant.

> The set (a, b, c) from
> (1) a = 2ᴺ, b = a + 1 and c = 2N + 2

Just this *implies* the original statement of the OP. It satisfies 11...1_2

> This set (a, b, c) satisfies (2a), but FAILS to verify (1):

No it doesn't. It satisfies (1) too, by construction.
[ note however I did not follow you on that (because I see it as irrelevant, redundant), I did not verify your algebra nor where it came from. So maybe therein, we are talking about something different at that point]

> Math can be a tricky bitch.

Not to me...

rotchm wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 5:13:42 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz
> wrote:
>
>> You didn't get what I mean.
>
> And, you didn't get what I mean:
> I responded *only* to that.
> I am merely pointing out that it not only *seems* to hold for large
> values of N, but holds for *every* value of N, small and big.

then shut the fuck up. You are too stupid for arithmetic too.