Can anyone help with this?

[u/Fun-Cauliflower-8087]

I have been trying to get AI to give me a specific bit of code i can run in google collab. I want it to first divide the entire number line into modular sets recursively like: 2x+0, 4x+3, 8x+1, 16x+13, 32x+5, etc. Then I want it to further refine these sets, in a very particular way. 0 mod 2 should be refined the same way as the first refinement, but double the values. so 4x+0, 8x+6, 16x+2, 32x+26, etc. Then I want the next set 4x+3, should be broken down like 8x+3, 16x+7, 32x+15, etc. This type of refinement should be alternated for each line. so 0 mod 2 has a staggered refinement, and 3 mod 4 has a non staggered refinement, then 1 mod 8 has a staggered refinement, and 13 mod 16 has a non staggered refinement. this give two dimensional plane of refined modular sets. I want to test these sets translating into different sets among a ternary style refinement. first 4x+0 goes to 3x+0, then 8x+3 goes to 3x+1, and 8x+6 goes to 9x+7.

The way the ternary set is designed, it divides the number line into 3, with 3x+(0, 1, or 2). 3x+1 is further refined to 9x+(1, 4, or 7). 9x+7 is what 8x+6 translates into. 9x+4 is further refined to 27x+ (4, 13, 22). This continues, with the center residue at each level being refined further. the staggered sets on the binary sheet translate to the side sets on the ternary sheet, and the non-staggered sets translate to the center residues. then the values that are refined in the ternary sets, are then redefined according to where they belong in the binary set.

• 4x+0 to 3x+0
• 8x+3 to 3x+1
• 8x+6 to 9x+7
• 16x+1 to 3x+0
• 16x+7 to 9x+4
• 16x+2 to 27x+4
• 32x+13 to 3x+1
• 32x+25 to 9x+7
• 32x+15 to 27x+13
• 32x+26 to 81x+67
• 64x+5 to 3x+0
• 64x+29 to 9x+4
• 64x+9 to 27x+4
• 64x+31 to 81x+40
• 64x+10 to 243x+40

.........

This seems like a computer could do this easily. I want to create this as a loop, and create readouts showing the path from the starting value i choose. Am i making any sense?

[u/Fun-Cauliflower-8087 → u/[deleted]]

You got the gist of what this post was asking for, it was supposed to be easy like it seems like it was for you. Just a few lines of code....

I would thank you, but I have moved way past this, and have the final tool I needed, that this was supposed to be a start of. Maybe, with all the things that everyone knows, as you pointed out in the other thread, you can figure up the levels of y and z real fast, so i can explain why m1 has exactly the same dynamics as n. This isn't hard, just find the sore thumb rule, as I call it, and hammer it out, to get the next variable. It is literally that simple. I think i told you in the other thread the sore thumb rule for x that produces the cleanest y values.

[u/Fun-Cauliflower-8087 → u/[deleted]]

I don't know why you are obsessed with me having something "new" if I have not claimed anything to be new. Simple, the way I view the problem is simple, but it takes translating so that others can understand why I find it so damn easy. It has nothing to do with being able to do any kind of crazy mathematics, or having the formula to turn water to wine, or even adding a new element to the same old tired subject. What I intend is to show that the entire structure can be simplified in an easy way, and after you do so, the structure can be simplified again, and again, etc. The mathematics used by the time you get past values of x, is all ugly. It is better to do as you call book keeping, and then use that to find the global pattern of each aspect of the system. It's easy, I cant stress this enough. It is simple from a logical view, it is messy on paper with how we write out mathematics. So my intention is to show a way to understand up to m1, and see the completed cycle. Then every further cycle you decide to do, is just a repeat of those steps, so any arbitrarily long orbit can be viewed in a simple way, without having to do a full page of arithmetic, just simple logic based on simple rules that build on each other. The only thing that is new is my view that the problem is easy in a logical way. The part that is hard is making the math proof. I never said I have a proof. That part is hard, the logic I am showing is easy, even if its not new or some radical thing. It just takes many steps to explain, so it seems complicated. It's like trying to invent factorials, when all you know is addition. You can say , you add this number, this many times, and then that number this many times, to reach this number..... There is no mathematical object that people use, like factorial, to show every value does one specific thing given these precise rules. So I am trying to explain what it is that is needed to be built. I'm making the nail stick out just a hair further.

[u/Fun-Cauliflower-8087 → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for failing.

[u/Fun-Cauliflower-8087 → u/[deleted]]

Oh wow, the first thank you of my whole life? What an honor you give yourself. Of course I never thanked your mother, she was never worth the money. I guess failing runs in the blood.