Re: Factoring paper is wrong

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: 15 Jun 2004 17:53:38 -0700

Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> wrote in message news:<jVxzc.2892$An.1805@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>...
> Richard Tobin wrote:
> > You're missing James's point. Bryan Olson claimed that James's
> > algorithm only worked in cases with a particular property. James is
> > (if I understand correctly) claiming that 34699508649151 is a number
> > that he can factor that doesn't have that property.
>
> Fair enough. I did miss that I had only considered one of the
> two chances James Harris's algorithm has to factor M. I believe
> I've corrected that in my latest follow-up to Sebastian
> Gottschalk.
>
> I've not confirmed the properties of this new example. I need
> to see the rest of the parameters, and preferably the method
> worked out.
>
> Possibly I mis-read the method, and possibly I made a mistake in
> my math. If so, I'll correct my work again. For now I believe
> that the method amounts to checking the GCD of M with some
> arbitrary integers.

Not exactly but I think you've given the fairest and most on-point
critique, yet.

I finally looked carefully at results where it does factor and noticed
that in every case the gcd found in a key place equals one of the
factors of M.

So basically I agree with you, and so I didn't come up with some grand
new way to factor. It was curious to play with for a while though.

I think I was just desperate after that paper of mine got yanked
because those sci.math assholes harassed the journal and intimidated
the chief editor, and I figured that I could get past them if only I
could come up with a dramatic result that no one could ignore.

My pure math results are too easy to fight, so I desperately tried to
find some way to break through, and ended up just convincing myself
something worked when it didn't.

Pure math is a sick joke. Mathematicians can and will ignore any
result they don't like, even if you manage to get it past peer review.
 The "purer" it is, the more easily they ignore it.

My other work has been fought out over YEARS. It took YEARS before I
had that paper and the paper was at a journal for NINE MONTHS, but
sci.math posters destroyed my efforts in a couple of days, and no one
really cared.

I need to break something to get the world's attention. If I could
design a weapon or anything, something concrete. Pure math is a waste
of time.

You can't win with pure math. Mathematicians have a political game,
and you can't win with pure math.

It doesn't matter what you discover, how important it is, if it
doesn't come down to dollars and cents.

If practical matters are not involved mathematicians can and will
ignore your results, like they have with all of mine.

I'm impotent in the face of it, having foolishly dependend on a system
that can't be trusted, now stuck with only the hope of finding some
way, any way to force the world to notice what mathematicians have
done.

And here I failed. No new way to factor. Still no way out.

James Harris

Quantcast