Re: Factoring problem, solved

From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:40:46 -0500

[Gregory G Rose]
>>> A couple of days ago you were asserting that the
>>> 50% number came from Quadratic Residues, and that
>>> you'd proved it. Well, either you're wrong now, or
>>> your proof was wrong then. We can't tell, because
>>> of course all you wrote then was gibberish.

[JSH]
>> Bull***. I started the argument, but didn't finish it in my post, but
>> what I started was quite correct, and not gibberish.
>> [...]
>> Oh, to understand the argument, you HAVE to understand things like
>> "mod" and, of course, even know what a quadratic residue actually is.

[tomstdenis@gmail.com]
> You're saying that Greg doesn't understand elementary number theory?
> [...]
> Dude, do some research before you perform character attacks.
> [...]
> Saying Greg doesn't know the math is about the most untrue thing
> you've said yet in this thread to date.

That's because the thread is still relatively young <wink/sigh>. People who
point out errors in JSH's ramblings are eventually called liars, and
subjected to worse abuse as time drags on. Sometimes (and it can take
literally years -- google) he comes to understand that one of the things he
said was in fact wrong. He then trots out an admission of that as an
example of his integrity, but doesn't retract any accusations against the
people who originally pointed out the mistake -- and often explained it so
clearly that it's behond comprehension the guy didn't get it the first 50
times around.

Don't take it personally. I'm sure he doesn't -- he doesn't know any more
about the people he vilifies than he knows about ... well, to pick a current
example, factoring.

Loading