I think I got the idea, I just now updated the original post and added a footnote how I understood the Brahmagupta–Fibonacci identity.
I have only surface knowledge about imaginary numbers, but I have noticed sum of two squares being also referred as Gaussian integers.
There’s definitely a lot of material to read about relating both Gaussian integers and Pythagorean triples, that I can gain intuition how all of these relations work out. I much appreciate the help!

Thank you for the answer! I have to take deeper look into that.
It’s rather interesting how seemingly two different sum components share factors. It’s like finding pi from seemingly unrelated series.

After some thinking I came up with this.
Conjecture:

N² = a²+b²
N  = c²+d²

a = 2*c*d
b = d²-c²

integers a,b,c,d>0

For any integer N that can be expressed as both N²=a²+b² and N=c²+d², the relationship a=2*c*d holds.  

Is it enough proof just to show that the above equations are true when substituting them to N² and N equations?
If a = 2*c*d then one leg of the Pythagorean triple definitely contains c and d factors and ‘2’. This might be related to Pythagorean triple parametrization.

I fixed the flawed ChatGPT counterexample finder script and now it gives this list of all numbers including composites which don’t follow these rules, such as 58. Here’s sub-sequence of A004431 numbers that don’t follow the rules:

Numbers which neither Pythagorean side is divisible by 4
Composites: [10, 26, 34, 50, 58, 74, 82, 90, 106, 122, 130, 146, 170, 178...]
This is identical to Sums of two distinct odd squares A339977 which makes sense as if c,d>1 and odd, they must be 3 or bigger hence their factors are missing the extra ‘2’, unlike primes where one of c or d is always even.
Even composites appear to follow a=2*c*d relation. The prime pythagorean side divisibility by 4 appears to be just a side effect.

That’s what 65dos Taipei music video looks like, though that was released 2013 https://youtu.be/06ObT5yIIx8

That’s at least fifty!

I’ve been using lemmy almost a year now and it has been fairly smooth. But I still get logged out every time I refresh some community pages which is strange.

So it’s illegal to die poor

Thank you so much! <3

basically Komodo dragon + maned wolf = maned dragon

Thank you ^^ It’s not a dragon in traditional sense, but I might just do that!

It’s funny how caught up I got about fantasy etymology after reading couple weeks of taxonomy and zoology

Yea! That’s why it’s more useful to specify traditional, mythological or a certain type of a dragon that have become more popular in recent fantasy.

The dragon term doesn’t necessarily need a strict definition. It’s just my preference that having structure is better and then you can decide how to break the norms. Although, most of these new variants share the same name ‘dragon’.
I still see the evolution of the term fascinating even if it is becoming more generic.

I agree with the biological definition, “organism that can survive as an individual”. Even if the fetus has a parasitic relation, it is capable of developing all functions to fit the full definition.
There are other definitions of ‘life’ and anyone is free to believe either way, but the more subjective question is: When does the fetus become a person?

Same thing with alcohol prohibition. People are going to break the law, legal or not. The US is said to be the freedom land, but women can’t have autonomy over their bodies.
What I gathered is that 70% of the US congress is men, so it’s not their freedom that they sacrifice.  
Christian values are important to some voters, so politicians can gain free points by promising anti-abortion laws.  
The politicians who make such decisions think one term at a time and disregard the consequences as long as it doesn’t affect them. If they actually cared, they would also advocate for childcare benefits.

I just have it in muscle memory to know which way soda bottle cap tightens

I believe abortion is killing, but it only becomes murder by definition if abortion is outlawed. The literal definition is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”
The fetus won’t have cerebral cortex till +12 weeks; no consciousness. So it wouldn’t be much different than killing a plant or bacteria. It’s debated when it becomes a human.
Yes, I justify murder as it will likely reduce the suffering. Thus, I am a monster in Christians eyes.

It looks bad for the advertisers to use strong words or take a stance.

That was a good watch, I can see binary view being at least part of the problem. I did think that religion might be part of the reason for some laws, but somehow didn’t realize how big. And the video had many other good points worth of the watch.

Thank you so much :3

It’s subjective and I prefer him being it’s own species now since I started reading about zoology.
In fictional world there’s no rules, but I liked the challenge thinking what species would it be if not a dragon or a hybrid, and based it on the real-life evolution.