Is the solution to arbitrary integers random variance?

Do you really want the answer? Not all answers bring peace of mind. Searching for meaning and ACHIEVING that meaning simply opens the door to the next adventure.

>>8696776
I am ready

Fibonacci sequence: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc.
Work towards understanding the sequence of abstraction. After understanding, generalize Fibonacci into a pattern:
An = (An-1 + An-2) - the simplest iteration of this pattern exists with the number one, because the only form that can fit it is: A1 = 1 = A(1-1=0) + A(1-0=1).
With this you have established a pattern that can be reasonably inferred. With that it is immediately clear - but given the fact that there is a pattern, any intelligent consciousness would derive what it is if given time/resources to do so.

Now, add a complication. Let’s say: 8, 21, 29, 50, 79, 129, 208, 337… the general formula holds true, but without knowing the first two values it becomes increasingly difficult to derive the pattern without knowing it, and thus appears increasingly random. Even though this is a more complex form, and appears increasingly random as the difference between the first two values becomes larger, it is still subject to being derived.

Further complication; add a multiplier: An = 3(An-1 + An-2). Set your first two values with distance: 3295 and 829583.
Algorithm results: 3295, 829583, 2498634, 9984651, 37449855, 142303518, 539260119, 2044690911… with this small sequence sample, and not knowing the starting pair, it would look hopelessly random even adding as simple of a multiplier to the formula as that. But there is nonetheless a pattern.

This demonstrates that “random” is simply a present inability to understand a pattern. Could we imagine increasingly complex manipulations of sequences so as to make it humanly impossible to determine any given pattern over the course of a lifetime? Absolutely - it wouldn’t even be hard. Add a few operators, an integral, a derivative, and an exponential function to the mix and the task becomes well outside that which can be determined. Change the difference from (n-1) + (n-2) to (n2-17) * (n/ei) and it becomes geometric, adding logarithmic complexity with exponents.

The common factor here is just that: Time. Would a computer do it better? Of course. Why, though? Because it takes less time. Given long enough to work on it, a human could do equally well, deriving the pattern over however long it takes. Thus, we have a corollary of this conclusion that randomness exists solely as a product of our limitations: The only difference between human and machine intelligence is time. On a long enough timeline, any goal of determining a pattern will be arrived at, because all it requires is a testing of every possible operator on every sample of data - the brute force method is only inelegant insofar as it trods interminably forward, pressing every possible button, a steely velociraptor testing each link in the fence. Evolution.

>>8696891
>>8696897
Just want you to know that I usually filter your bullshit

These posts, though, almost make me want to reconsider my actions.

>>8696891
>Every possible sequence has analytic ordinance
Prove it

>>8696975
Um, no. That's not really what I want to do. That's the awesome thing about free will. A proof is simply something that takes 'time', and I want to spend my time doing other shit.

I'm only still here because for psychological reasons you cunts are the only ones that seem to calm my mind.

>solution
>to arbitrary integers
what the fuck are you smoking

children in grade school in north america typically learn to construct coherent amd meaningful sentences *before* they are taught about the integers

>>8696911
How logarithmic of you.

>>8696985
He isn't smoking anything. If he were, I would recommend he smoke whatever makes him happy.

>>8696891
>>8696897
What gives these things structure, though?
Aren't patterns entirely arbitrary as well then?

>>8698798
Well, because the current laws we exist in are those of thermodynamics.

E=MC2 is analgous to -> Substance = Structure(Speed of light in a vacuum)2

Photons/phonons/pineapple

You are asking for a pattern to imbue inherent meaning, but it is more accurate to say that mathematical analysis is simply identifying the pattern of whatever links our idea of: Substance <-> Structure.

Mathematician = Cartographer for understood natural laws

Maths builds maps for others to walk. It isn't IN and OF ITSELF a destination.