Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: 26 Jan 2005 14:53:41 -0800

phr@localhost.localdomain wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com writes:
> > The program does factor. It just doesn't factor every number you
try
> > to factor with it, and I've been working out why, theoretically.
>
> That's not a problem. Your program doesn't have to factor every
> number someone tries to factor with it. The problem is that your
> program doesn't, as far as anyone can tell, factor ANY numbers that
> can't be factored at least as easily by traditional methods. So
> there's not the slightest bit of evidence that you've done anything
> interesting.
>

The same argument applies to the Shor algorithm, which to date has
factored, 15.

The reality is that I found a new factoring method.

That's a first point, and I think it important to point out that
posters slide past that important point repeatedly in their replies.
Your motivation seems to be, don't consider what the facts are, just
talk down to a person known as a crank.

So, first fact, new factoring method that works.

Now if you look at the literature, there are only so many known
factoring methods.

And now there is another.

Let's stop there, as time after time after time I've noticed a tendency
to lie about mathematics on groups like these, when it's supposedly so
difficult to lie about mathematics.

You people, if you don't acknowledge that I've introduced a new
factoring method are lying.

And you will lie as if you admit that crucial fact, then your other
points of disagreement go out the window.

The reality is it's *easy* to lie about mathematics if you have a group
that just keeps saying one thing over and over again in opposition to
the facts, with just one person who says the facts over and over again,
as that's how society works.

I have the facts, you have your social group to help you lie.
James Harris

Quantcast