Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation

From: C. Bond (cbond_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:47 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> There are actually two discussions that can take place about my
> surrogate factoring theory:
>
> The theory itself, and implementations of the theory.
>
> Not surprisingly some posters have seized on the efficacy of my
> prototype program, which primarily is a proof-of-concept, which I have
> put out there so you can get some sense of how things are going without
> having to first read through the paper.
>
> If that prototype had worked as well as I'd hoped, I wouldn't be
> posting about it.
>
> I'm talking this out now on Usenet *because* I'm seeing a failures in
> that program that puzzle me, and having hit a wall, I'm talking the
> problem out.
>
> First thing with a young theory with an implementation that doesn't
> behave as expected is to check the theory!!!
>
> Maybe it's just wrong.
>
> I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.

Well then, maybe you are an incompetent programmer -- in spite of your
claims to the contrary.

A solution to a problem would consist of a correct theory and a working
implementation. You have contributed neither. 

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and
the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com