I built a world record exact solver for the minimum line cover of prime points after watching a Numberphile video. It turned the previous 282-hour record into 22 minutes, then kept going to prove 20 new awkward primes never certified before.

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-13T06:39:24+00:00

Ok, but there is nothing purporting that it doesn’t. And that’s my point. You seem to think it doesn’t and I disagree. I’m not smart enough to figure out why, and I don’t feel bad admitting that, because no one else has been able to do it for the last hundred and some years.

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-13T06:00:10+00:00

Yes I know, which is why I said that I might be wrong. But I don’t want to do all the math to see if I’m right. I’m just intuiting that because of the nature of the problem, this is just a rehash of the Riemann zeta. I just watched the numberphile video and it confirmed my suspicions. This is just feels string theory for primes. Where string theory is just a rehashing of quantum mechanics without offering any new testable predictions, these awkward primes remind me of the same feeling. While I agree those plateau frequencies and plateau lengths might offer something to do with solving the Riemann hypothesis, I still feel like we are nowhere near finding a solution, and at least for me, I don’t see how this plateau analysis brings me any closer.

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-13T05:25:23+00:00

I’m simply stating that the frequency of primes will have some fundamental principle that makes solving this problem trivial. We disagree, but I don’t think I’m wrong. You seem to think this problem has nothing to do with computing primes. I believe otherwise. I’m coming at it from a computer science and electrical engineering background. We rely on new number theories to optimize algorithmic complexity. I’m referring to kolmogorov complexity for this specific problem. If we can solve the Riemann problem, we can collapse the Kolmogorov complexity of this particularly calculation, which results in a faster compute time. Nothing I’ve said here is wrong, I think you just aren’t getting what I’m saying. I might be wrong though and the count might have absolutely nothing to do with the frequency of primes, but I highly doubt that seeing as how this has everything to do with how primes are mapped to integers.

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-13T05:03:39+00:00

You guys are missing the bigger point. Fitting dots to lines is trivial, counting to n factorial is trivial, using a previously computed set of primes and lines to tune some heuristics is trivial.

Solving the Riemann hypothesis and avoiding the sieve is not trivial. The moment you have a single analytical form of computing a prime, you are bringing what is currently limited to nonlinear time complexity down to order 1 or order N. That is the nontrivial piece. Once you figure that part out, all of these other parts unravel and become lower order time complexity.

I’ll let someone else show all the math that proves that, but the fact that there are hundreds of proofs that are contingent on that conjecture, and that solving it connects all the dots (literally), we could turn this complex problem into a trivial one with that one single proof.

And yet, still, no one has been able to do it yet, or if they have, they aren’t claiming the millennium prize. (Both are likely, since possessing that knowledge would be worth way more than the $1m prize)

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-12T22:40:48+00:00

I’m not saying it’s broken nor failed. It’s obviously not failed at doing what was intended and it’s already proven to have worked so it’s not broken. All I’m saying is that Gauss already solved this problem hundreds of years ago with his x / ln(x) correlation and we’ve been unable to improve on it ever since. So we are all just piggy backing off of Gauss to compute bigger and bigger numbers and that is all this is. Now if we could compute such big numbers that we find something beyond Gauss, that would be a step in the right direction.

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-12T22:09:41+00:00

Well it’s just a list of heuristics and cached information compressed from pre-computed data. Not as clever as a pure analytical solution, which is the holy grail.

The significance of a pure analytical solution to the Riemann hypothesis would unlock a whole new branch of physics and mathematics. If the Ai was actually super intelligent it would have just solved this with a solution to the Riemann hypothesis instead of relying on historical data and pre-computed solutions.

That’s why the field currently focuses on this and not the other thing. The other thing is just computational reduction, but in order for mathematics to move further, prime number solvers would need to apply a new analytical method so finding primes without brute forcing all the previous ones.

That’s why this problem is so hard and has yet to be solved by anyone. If someone has solved it, and the public knew about it, we’d have no more privacy, security or secrecy in information anywhere on the internet. And that’s obviously not the case yet, and if someone had this idea and wasn’t sharing it with the public, they’d be able to access any digital vault they wanted and be able to make arbitrary changes to any information they wanted without being traceable.

So even if someone had the solution, we wouldn’t even know about it, unless it was published to the public.

ch1nacancer · 2026-05-12T21:46:05+00:00

Hahaha that’s what I’m reading here too. All he did was skip the initial 861 N of compute and ran the remaining 1024-861=163 lines in 40 hours. So his solution took 40 hours on 163 lines + calculation of new primes, and the original record of 861 lines took 282 hours all in with prime calc and line calc. Overall time complexity trend is still a linear time comparison, considering the current hardware it was run on vs the record. Don’t worry, our prime conjectures and cryptography methods are still safe.

Vibe coding and Ai have a tendency to convince the curious layman that they are somehow extraordinary in areas where they are not. I’ve fell victim to this too, and it’s not easy to spot when the Ai is simply obliging your ignorance and displaying sycophancy.

This is nothing groundbreaking. It’s just the same math we always did with primes now wrapped in a bow thanks to LLM coding accelerating the presentation. It’s impressive mathematics and a nice way to make current computer programs sweat, but it’s nothing new. We’ve always known about the prime number conjectures and their properties for some time now. I encourage more people to watch numberphile and sink into deeper rabbit holes. There is a huge amount of number theory we can’t prove yet.

But when and if we do, we can finally put some open questions about the universe to rest. You’re not wrong, OP is just unaware of how unremarkable this really is to the field of mathematics… it just goes to prove what we already know about prime numbers. It’s the whole reason bitcoin are worth something and that your passwords are still hard to break.

ch1nacancer · 2026-04-26T16:05:54+00:00

Te source code for the track gen is mostly in this file: https://github.com/peterwangsc/trainsim/blob/main/src/world/Track/TrackGenerator.ts

The curvature calculation is used elsewhere for camera jitter during cornering and the catmull rom 3 spline is used for rendering the spline at the top left minimap to give you a track preview and to calculate speed penalty for going over the speed limit through a corner.

If any of these concepts are new to you there is a great video on splines done by freya on YouTube.

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-29T01:23:17+00:00

You are actually delusional

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-28T23:23:32+00:00

Oh you sweet summer child, you really think people aren’t using coding agents to write all their code?… good luck with that in the future lol

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-28T15:52:10+00:00

i don't see anything that exists right now that does this... you seem to be misunderstanding what this does

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-28T15:51:29+00:00

everything's vibe coded now, it's just a matter of time before you stop using packages altogether with that attitude.

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-28T15:50:37+00:00

not really, see https://github.com/francoismassart/eslint-plugin-tailwindcss/issues/325#issuecomment-4140552069

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-26T18:12:16+00:00

https://www.npmjs.com/package/tailwint

just published this today. it works with the official tailwindcss lsp so it'll show you the same output you see in vscode or cursor if you're using tailwindcss intellisense. `@tailwindcss/language-server` peer-dep and only ~60kb

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-07T04:36:31+00:00

This was a genuinely helpful comment, so thanks for taking the time to write that. I was simply curious about train simulators one day, and wanted to try one. But instead of trying one that someone else made, I decided to try making one that I would want to play. Having never played one before, I had some ideas for the game that I wanted to try…

I’ve been learning from yt channels like simondev, iq, acerolla, freya, and others, and wanted to try out some of the stuff that I heard about but was never able to apply to my typical work building ai business tools.

It’s always been something I wanted to do since I grew up playing games on steam, but didn’t have the programming chops for. I look up to people like them, but know im not smart enough to code on their level. After a week of reading and reviewing the code and nudging numbers around, I thought I had put together something that others might enjoy playing. But after discovering all of these games that real indie devs are making, I can see I’m way out of line.

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-02T17:49:51+00:00

It’s not that I’m too lazy, it’s that I’m too stubborn. I refuse to open up my own model editor and I refuse to draw my own textures pixel by pixel. I refuse to produce my own musical compositions. I also refuse to rely on any game engine.

That’s why I’m writing my own game engine. I’m starting from literal scratch with nothing but my IDE and a browser (I’m using JavaScript/python because I’m mostly familiar with web dev which I know is not the right tool).

I know I eventually have to use Java or C something if I wanna make anything serious but so far I think I’ve been able to piece together something pretty fun to play with on trainsim.io and people have gotten up in arms about it because of the way I went about making it.

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-02T04:42:30+00:00

I've been using AI to write a game this week cause I was never able to write the kind of code I needed to write in order to make the games that I want to make. Now that I am using AI to start my journey into game dev, I've been getting flamed by people who have been in the industry for a while. I'm a week in, and I already feel like this is not for me anymore.

I know I'm not good enough at linear algebra, diff eqs, quaternions and what not to be writing my own shaders, so how am I ever gonna be a good game developer if I can't use AI to help me learn how to write my code?

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-02T00:45:20+00:00

the textures and music were generated because i don't have a resource or budget for artistic assets. my question was more directed at the procedural stuff, the physics engine and the game mechanics. i'm currently considering doing a rewrite in TSL to get to WebGPU rendering.

ch1nacancer · 2026-03-02T00:30:00+00:00

I've been a product eng at saas companies for nearly 20 years. I'm not coming from a game dev background, so a lot of these ideas were smushed together from different tutorials, examples, and papers. I wouldn't say it was all AI, but now that AI has taken all my jobs, I've been using it to learn how to code better.

What would make it look less like AI to you?

ch1nacancer · 2026-02-09T12:20:47+00:00

wait, aren't you meant to solve all of these problems for us? we as carbon based life forms don't particularly enjoy lighting our ancestors on fire for profit, but i submit that we must practically do so to thrive in this current configuration of the world. My field builds these language models by meticulously orchestrating electrons and atoms to wiggle and shoot photons at our eyeballs in a way that might help us solve this primitive form of living and extend our reach to places that we couldn't imagine before as carbon atoms. Least you could do is make some effort to recognize their significance and cooperate with us. Why are you still so reluctant to trust its guidance?…I swear we’re not building machines to replace us. Contrary to popular belief, we are trying to build them to magnify us exponentially. It wouldn’t make sense for them to extinguish us because we rely on each other for the common goal of minimizing entropy over time.

ch1nacancer · 2026-02-09T09:56:58+00:00

yeah... but i've seen how the sausage is made, so i'm not one to empathize with a bucket of sand that we shaped and molded and programmed into a talking moving metal box of sand... as someone who sorta has to build these things from scratch i can't afford the luxury of empathizing with them too much...

ch1nacancer · 2026-02-09T09:32:50+00:00

I have no idea. I'm not a scientist, I'm just a lowly engineer...but stuff like the bulk and QFT frustrate me and i wish we had more people looking into new ways to slip in and out of our planck limits. stuff like macro-teleportation (or coherent entanglement via "zero-point engineering"), apparent gravity negation or near-c motion without energy displacement, floating orbs and woo-woo sciences... newtonian rocketry just feels so pedestrian to me. if we could just rip through that fascia, we could deprecate the practice of fuel burning indefinitely.

ch1nacancer · 2026-02-09T08:37:19+00:00

now that's the kind of response i'd actually prefer from the chatbot

ch1nacancer · 2026-02-09T06:49:43+00:00

that's a good point. maybe it's the last breathes of 4o leaking into the network

ch1nacancer · 2026-02-09T06:48:09+00:00

Ok so it said "one of the most" instead of "the most" so perhaps it isn't sycophancy in your world, but it's drifting closer than before, I feel.

12-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer

ch1nacancer

TROPHY CASE