# Mathematicians finally identify 'seemingly impossible' number after 32 years, thanks to supercomputers

#### SkidWard

I was going to post this same exact concept and proof, evidence and timestamps from before this post was made. Basically the same exact stuff i have been working on for the past 3 years mostly and up to 15 years.

Want the answers? Start giving credit to your source. Your results are as equivalent in 100% manner of concept and proof, simply worded more proper and educated.

Here you go. P=n4-4
The quantum state of 2D to 3D. 3 places in 1 time and 3 times in 1 place, simulatenously like schrodingers. Quantum. Qu. Cu. Que. 4. For. Four.

Enjoy the rabbit hole with the technology, you did it on a supercomputer. I did it with pen and paper after previous binary computer usage. When you used the supercomputer for 4 months, i used my brain for a few days.

You got this overcomplicated terminology which ultimately becomes algebra and elementary in mathematical logic of linguistical explanatory simplification of relativity in simulatenous inversion through 10.

You dont need to fill the inner space. You just need a downsized filler as a cogwheel using triangular 3.14x3 with a variation of rounding up the number to account for the center of a triangular object for multinational singular direction

#### Shrike

I was going to post this same exact concept and proof, evidence and timestamps from before this post was made. Basically the same exact stuff i have been working on for the past 3 years mostly and up to 15 years.

Want the answers? Start giving credit to your source. Your results are as equivalent in 100% manner of concept and proof, simply worded more proper and educated.

Here you go. P=n4-4
The quantum state of 2D to 3D. 3 places in 1 time and 3 times in 1 place, simulatenously like schrodingers. Quantum. Qu. Cu. Que. 4. For. Four.

Enjoy the rabbit hole with the technology, you did it on a supercomputer. I did it with pen and paper after previous binary computer usage. When you used the supercomputer for 4 months, i used my brain for a few days.

You got this overcomplicated terminology which ultimately becomes algebra and elementary in mathematical logic of linguistical explanatory simplification of relativity in simulatenous inversion through 10.

You dont need to fill the inner space. You just need a downsized filler as a cogwheel using triangular 3.14x3 with a variation of rounding up the number to account for the center of a triangular object for multinational singular direction
When humanity bans AI and computers you can apply for a job as a Mentat.

cecilia fx

#### Mike Whitaker

Sorry to say that you need to employ a proof reader who spots word bloopers by sight. The description under the first picture has such a whoopsie. -- The ninth Dedekind number was previously assumed to be impossible to claculate. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

Claculate? sound of a train on a track? I apologise, I admit I am a grammar nazi/spelling nazi. Keep up the great work.
Mike

#### hpecora1

Neat result and nicely written article.

I did find myself a bit confused at what the Dedekind numbers were actually measuring until you mentioned the hypercube colorings. If you end up editing this article in the future, I think it would be a good idea to include the definition of the Dedekind numbers right after describing MBFs. A simple way to describe them might sound something like "The Dedekind numbers count the total number of MBFs with a given number of inputs", followed by a simple example, say describing two 2-variable MBFs.

Regardless, very cool stuff and thanks for helping publicize the work.