Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@rashmisinghal2267 says : I've created a formula to find odd perfect numbers that's not Euler's formula. --This is not a joke, it took me 5 years>> <<@kishorechandra5166 says : 17:35>> <<@someoneintehstreet says : damn how do u fail at cracking a problem>> <<@good4youNaJa says : 9:16 67 😂>> <<@AyanKutwaroo says : Hitler?>> <<@Kommand_alt says : A new Mersenne prime was discovered on October 12th, 2024 of 2^136279841-1>> <<@RamonMiguelC.GAMOLO says : 12>> <<@washingmachine10-debt says : 16256 is the answer>> <<@Panagiotisdimitra says : Calculator left the chat>> <<@ThousandSunsets-y6r says : Its impossible for there to be any odd perfect numbers because the odd number plus one is always gonna equal to just kne number more>> <<@That1BlondieGuy says : 1?>> <<@_a_yo9781 says : 11:07>> <<@justinsander7654 says : Had some fun with the numbers on the thumb nail and got 8,786.285714285714. 😅 to no purpose.>> <<@AudioDogFlorin says : At 2:39. 28=1+2+3+4+5+6+7 ?😮>> <<@wwesportlive8777 says : Hey! Guys!🎉 I got a great cool big Question!(The Perfect Numbers): (Sigma Function and down is n=1. And up is Merresne Primes.) (The Merresne Primes):The Function: M-M-1/2.>> <<@Redcolorboy says : bro the "sigma function"...>> <<@Raniakdouh says : six is a perfect number intresting>> <<@UNKNOWN_7XYz says : What's the use of this>> <<@mohamedsabryyyy says : The solution not in numbers in geometry>> <<@Lorelyn-d3t says : 8,128😊>> <<@matik5927 says : Give me the problem ill solve if still not im just too lazy to watch the video tell me what to solv>> <<@YenShuoYanYnps says : me watching this as a 12 yr old kid rn>> <<@kwjdsoaoje says : The solution is 45>> <<@matiaslo3504 says : 8128 33550336>> <<@GearNVZ says : Watching this video knowing damn well i have nothing to do with it in the future>> <<@Sneaky_snakeX99 says : Do you watch the video -yes Do you understand anything -no😂😂😂😂😂😂>> <<@abstractxiii says : 3:44 I watched a cut of this video and started thinking about it and playing around to see if another pattern would pop out at me if i changed the number system. Tried binary and thought, no f*n way. Found this video to see if anyone else mentioned it and as im typing about it we hit this point in the video. 😅>> <<@holajza says : If we could give a scientific calculator to Euler all of science would be solved by now>> <<@sampathmallawadisno7671 says : In 3 , 1×3 =3 1+2=3 😅 2×1.5 =3>> <<@Somebodywhowantstoexist says : I don’t know why some people would think that there’s only so many perfect numbers, of course not, there’s infinitely many numbers and eventually no matter how high you go. You will find another perfect number because there’s an infinite amount there has to be an infinite amount of perfect numbers.>> <<@michaelviau7349 says : If there are an infinite amount of numbers, wouldn’t that mean there are an infinite number of Perfect Numbers?>> <<@FrozenLocality says : I solved it>> <<@Braincantweld says : straight yapping myb i watched the video when it came out and forgot 99% of it but, while typing/thinking the video was paused i never unpaused it so what i said is probably already covered and everything i thought i came up with already had a name over it my bad if one is found i just weld im not a mathematician of any means, however using basic rules seen through known perfects its not possible for an odd to exist, ngl i just had a long deeply thought out conversation with myself for 2 hours on why it couldnt and i cant remember my exact thought but it has to do with needing odd amount of divisors and how and odd perfect would need an even amount which would always end up even and i bounced my thoughts off of some ai and it brought up squares and how a perfect square number would have to be a part of it so the only way i see this happening is a number that would have an odd squared number which cant happen unless it does breaks the odd divisors rule and a lot of other yap and it doesnt and cant exist THE END>> <<@MarcosLVasquez says : 7.97:753+855.(8572)=7,329,813>> <<@BigMoTheBlackDragon says : Then you shut down the Internet & all computing that isn't working on perfect numbers. It should be finished in what, 23 billion, billion, billion years. So, tell your mother to stop the Candy Crush, & no calling or texting anymore, the smert people need the bandwidth & cycles.>> <<@pm-dm9md says : Consider n > 2, a > b \geq 1 a = b + k Let n = a + (a-k) + 1 Multiply 2 2n = (2a + 1) + (2(a-k) + 1) We know every odd greater than 1 can be expressed as the sum of prime and even (non-negative). 2n = (p + 2x) + (2(a-k) + 1) 2n = p + ((2(a + x - k) + 1) We know every odd greater than 1 can be expressed as the sum of prime and even (non-negative). 2n = p + q + 2c Now suppose p = 3 2n = (3 + 2c) + q Let's reduce c to 0 2n = (5 + 2(c-1)) + q 2n = (7 + 2(c-2)) + q 2n = (11 + 2(c-4)) + q 2n = (13 + 2(c-5)) + q .... 2n = (p' + 2(c-k)) + q c-k is getting very small Suppose c-k > 0 then 2n = (3 + 2(c-k+x) + p' Let's reduce c to 0 2n = (5 + 2(c-k+x-1)) + p' 2n = (7 + 2(c-k+x-2)) + p' 2n = (11 + 2(c-k+x-4)) + p' 2n = (13 + 2(c-k+x-5)) + p' .... 2n = (p' + 2(c-k+x-y)) + q' it is a repeating loop, I know, but the 2c' buffer has been decreased First, we need to understand 2n never changed So p' is the greatest prime less than or equal to 2n - 3 So q + 2(c-k) must be between 1 and n range \geq 3 So c-k+x-y is relatively small compared to n due to shifting let c-k+x-y = c' 2n = p' + q' + 2c' 2(n-c') = p' + q' 2n^(ln (n-c') / ln n) = p' + q' (ln (n-c') / ln n) This is a continuous function 2n^(limit at n=∞ (ln (n-c') / ln n)) = p' + q' 2n^1 = p' + q' (limit at n=∞ (ln (n-c') / ln n) = 1 This is the only continuous function. If limit at n=∞ 2(n - c') = limit at n=∞ p' + q' limit at n=∞ 2n = limit at n=∞ p' + q' 2n ≈ p' + q'>> <<@mohammedpascal says : 3:25 have you noticed that the number of ones are in the pattern of prime numbers? 110, 11100, 111110000, 1111111000000>> <<@NinaZ-m3d says : People in 300 Bc are smarter than me😭🤚>> <<@gjfwang says : Sigh... Fine I guess I'll figure it out for you guys>> <<@Beebaboobee says : 6:35 The way we read 2^p - 1 and 2^(p-1) is the same. I’m so confused 😂>> <<@William_pro says : i found 3 prime numbers with 13 digits>> <<@BattleMinds-history says : that is insane>> <<@hubert3563 says : Euclid was not just one man, there were 6 of them, a these are their initials E U C L I D>> <<@catlushh says : No actually it is La Peace>> <<@CynicalSlopTakes says : Isnt 1 an odd perfect number? 😂>> <<@vardhanshah2810 says : I mean, when Einstien was figuring out relativity, I dont think he would have imagined it would allow us to have GPS. Just because we dont have an application right now, should not mean the research is illogical>> <<@sarkrda.1 says : I actually have the evidence for how this problem is already solved, and the proof isn't hiding in a supercomputer—it's in the structure of reality itself. Here is the evidence: Every perfect number we’ve ever found is Even. Why? Because the physical universe is mathematically built on pairs and balances. But what exactly are we searching for with an "Odd Perfect Number"? We are looking for absolute, unpaired singularity (Odd) combined with absolute completeness (Perfect). In classical philosophy, absolute singular perfection cannot exist as a created, replicable mathematical object. It is the exact definition of the Creator. The reason mathematicians can't find it on a calculator is that true "Odd Perfection" exists entirely outside the universe. It’s not an unsolved math problem—it’s just mathematics bringing us to the boundary of reality and pointing straight to God.>> <<@Kabissa.Hichem says : 1 is an odd perfect number.>> <<@MarlonJamesDelaCruz-dm1lk says : somethings sigma 11:09>> <<@Two-d3k says : 6, 28, 496, 8,128, 33,550,336, ?>>