Recent content by approx

Thanks for the input and the links. I'll try these out.

I've been looking for a free download of a programming language that is easy to use and handles large numbers for a number theory problem I'm working on. I will report my results here after I use it. My TI isn't powerful enough and my other programmable calculator that I downloaded, graphcalc...

So, lately I haven't been able to give it a lot of thought, but recently I realized that there are large lists of pythagorean triples which might help find my "c" since p^2+4c must be a perfect square in order for the quadratic formula to work out right, and since pythagorean triples are of the...

thanks for the ideas, Obydefinition. I will have to think a bit about them. Actually, the reason I came up with my quadratic form is because it can be proven that forming a quadratic x^2 + bx - c, where c is as described before (highest prime factor of c is greatest prime p less than square...

correct

CRGreathouse, thanks for the consideration for gender - it's "he" by the way. approx

put another way, your quote (below) is completely right, except use x^2 + px - c = 0. Thanks again.

I truly apologize for not having this conjecture organized when I wrote it - it was an old idea for me, but put into a new form and I hadn't ironed out everything I needed to have to make it clear when I first wrote it. Here is how it should go, only slightly different than it started out...

likewise, x^2+3x+2 has integer roots, 1 and 2.

very good point: I have noticed that the conjecture only "kicks-in" for p>9, when p<9 we sometimes need x^2 + px + c = 0 in that case x^2 + 5x + 4 = 0 has the roots 1 and 4. I know this seems kind of arbitrary, and it is. The original version of my conjecture said "plus or minus c" but I...

Thank you, Hurkyl, for your assistance in this matter and for the links to smooth numbers and primorials. Though I haven't looked into your computations in detail, they seem sound. I do appreciate you having an open mind at the end: You seem to recognize that that each event of finding...

Last attempt at asking for help! Hello, I'm really surprised that nobody has come up with any advice on how to prove such a beast. I've been working on it, in a slightly different form, for about 13 years and I thought for certain that when I came up with a quadratic formulation of my...

Basically, A=>B means if we know that A is true then B is true, also if we know that B is false we can show that A is false. If all we know is that A is false we aren't certain about B, and if all we know is that B is true we aren't certain about A. A <=> B means they are either both true or...

interesting... Well, I have always felt uneasy with saying "you just can't divide zero by zero, it doesn't mean anything" or whatever. I think what is interesting here is, if I understand you correctly, you are making a distinction between simply dividing by the number zero, and dividing by a...

Program Hey, sorry if I sounded abrupt or harsh, shouldn't be typing if I don't have much time to think-over what I'm saying. Would anybody out there know how to use the program Maxima? I recently downloaded it but I haven't had time to learn the lingo. It uses much bigger numbers than my...