>>12861479>>12861523The original 14 page one only ever existed that first day before it was formatted, when it was formatted it turned into the 11 page first version. All the same info was there though, nothing omitted.
>>12861325>>12863014Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I found an issue.
As much as I love promoting it, I'm also the first too admit when I recognize a flaw, as I did with the first version before updated it.
I spent the day reviewing the logic, and trying to solve the system more directly without the need for sums equaling 0. There's some issue in the logic, not exactly sure what yet, around step 39.
The substitutions I'm using into 34 and 35 can be done in 2 or 3 ways, and each gives a subtly different system, all of which are logically consistent, yet all of which yield slightly different results. And there is the issue exactly related to your comment here
>>12863014. Without going into all the details, the one set of substitutions causes the sums to be 0, the other causes the constants to take values.
When the constants do take values in the one instance they are always either 0,1, or +- 1/2, but there's some over arching structure of the recursion I'm missing to pull the data out the best way possible. I also can approach the solution from the back end, and I know the sum of the squares of the constants must equal 1/2, but I'm having a hard time pulling it out of the recursion, it pops up in places, but not exactly logically from my front end construction.
I'll work on it over the next few weeks if I can, make it more robust or figure it out, of course I'll post an update, otherwise I'll create a revision to the paper changing it from a proof format back to an exploratory of the method,and continue to try and flesh it out even better. I know the data is in the recursion. We'll see.
