Quote from: DdmrDdmr on September 20, 2018, 08:50:12 AM

Note: Im not quite sure why you aggregate the extra 4 sMerits to the 46.084 based on the number of decomposed initial numbers (I mean the reason behind).

23045= 2¹⁴ + 2¹² + 2¹¹ + 2⁹ +2² +2⁰

23045 is used as sum of 6 numbers and each number (or series) ended at 1. Practically 1 Merit is not useful to generate any Merit but when 6 series (each ended with 1) then you got extra 6 Merits, These 6 Merits can produce 4 full merits leaving the redundant smerits.

Quote from: paxmao on September 20, 2018, 08:55:37 AM

Quote from: LoyceMobile on September 20, 2018, 04:57:37 AM

All these calculations to come up with 46088 instead of 46090?

The geometric sum formula assumes an infinite series of descending terms, which is not the case as the minimum merit is 1. That should explain discrepancies IMO.

Thanks Paxmao, making it more clear.

TeQuiero also explained how the sum in GP done and I already given links to the GP tutorials in OP. 46090 is no way correct.

Any way , after calculating with few more values, I got the generalized formula for Merit generation from sMerits.

X (smerits)=> 2X - 1 Merits (X >0, and X can be expressed as 2^y like 2,4,8, 16 and so on.)

X(smerits)=> 2X-2 Merits (X >0, and X can not be expressed as 2^y like 6,7 ,12 etc..)

Quote from: LoyceMobile on September 20, 2018, 04:57:37 AM

All these calculations to come up with 46088 instead of 46090?

If 23045 sMerits generate 46090 Merits. And these 46090 Merits will again able to generate 23045 sMerits. Then cycle can simply go on.
We know already, this type of cycle is not going on ,so even without using any mathematics I can say by practical experience, it is absolutely incorrect.