Re: JSH: Nearly done
From: Mark Nudelman (markn_at_greenwoodsoftware.com)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: briggs_at_encompasserve.org: "Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N"
- Previous message: Dave Seaman: "Re: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesn't exist"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Next in thread: ošin: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: ošin: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: Christian Bau: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:41:23 -0800
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> If any of you have an ounce of mathematical ability then meet me with
> mathematics.
>
> I dare you.
I wish you _would_ talk about the mathematics more, rather than all the long
postings about how people are mistreating you.
Specifically I would like you to answer two questions:
1. Why is it easier to factor T rather than M? In another post I think you
said it's _not_ because it may have small factors, as Nora proposed.
2. What's the basis for your statement that the whole process will execute
in polynomial time?
--Mark
- Next message: briggs_at_encompasserve.org: "Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N"
- Previous message: Dave Seaman: "Re: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesn't exist"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Next in thread: ošin: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: ošin: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: Christian Bau: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|