Re: JSH: Nearly done
From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/28/05
- Next message: Joseph: "Splitting fields"
- Previous message: Mack: "Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- In reply to: Nora Baron: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Next in thread: Rick Decker: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: Rick Decker: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:00:04 -0500
...
[Rick Decker]
>> You can *always* find rational solutions for x. That's not a deep
>> result.
[JSH]
>>> Maybe for really big numbers rational x's become difficult to find.
>>>
>>> But at this point, I don't see a mathematical reason why they should.
>>>
>>> I think it would be quite useful if one of you could settle the
>>> question.
[Rick Decker]
>> Done. I'll give a proof if anyone's interested.
Please do. I was hoping James could be tempted into a bit of civility by
saying "yes, please do" himself, but days have passed. At least he didn't
post to call you a liar.
[Nora Baron]
> Harris still seems to think that finding rational x might be a
> problem.
So leave him behind <wink>.
...
> Given a rational x, Harris will then look at its numerator
> and try to find primes which divide M. Of course I would
> think you need some assurance that such primes are not also
> in the denominators of the things that x is multiplied by -
> I would guess that is very unlikely in a real live problem
> because those factors will be extremely large.
Rick is just looking for x such that 1 < gcd(numerator(x), M) < M (I don't
know what James is looking for). When that holds, we've found a non-trivial
factor, and all the equations leading up to it become irrelevant (so, e.g.,
it doesn't matter if that factor also appears as a factor of some
denominator along the way).
> Harris himself has declined to give the details that you have
> given - it is interesting that your presentation is much
> clearer than his -
Interesting? Na. You gave a clearer presentation of James's method
yourself not long ago. I'm sure he wouldn't agree it was a correct
interpretation in all respects, but deciphering what he thinks he's trying
to say is a major headache.
> but he keeps referring to his Yahoo group and the paper that is
> available. So I thought: I will just join the Yahoo group and
> have a look at it. So I joined. Evidently 'norabaron' is already
> a name that is used by some other member of Yahoo,
It's hard to find a name that isn't. Spammers auto-generated tons of
nonsense names too.
> so I had to change my name to 'baron_nora'.That worked and I was
> given permissions to access the files on the website. However the
> file that contained the paper was empty. Perhaps Harris was revising
> it. That was yesterday.
That's peculiar. AFAICT, the same paper has been there since January 17;
it's still there today.
> Today when I accessed the site I was not allowed in - the
> message on the screen said I was BANNED FROM THE GROUP by the
> controller of the group. This controller, whoever he is, must
> have seen right through the baron_nora disguise. Pretty astute,
> eh?
He's just protecting his group's "All James All The Time" signal-to-noise
ratio <wink>.
...
> So here is the Harris behavior. He makes huge claims and brags
> incessantly that they are BEYOND BRILLIANT, etc.. He doesn't
> give the details. He complains that evil mathematicians are out
> to suppress and misrepresent him. Even though my post in this
> thread is probably the ONLY one that says what he has done here
> appears to be a new idea, even though I am maybe the ONLY person
> to have said that it might be useful, even though I made an honest
> effort to be fair in commenting on it, even though I do not regularly
> call him an idiot, even though he posts his group website address
> repeatedly and urges people to read his paper there, it is clear
> that Harris does not want a mathematician to look at what he has
> done - he wants us to recognize his genius and agree with what
> he has done WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT, and if we don't, the world
> as we know it will come to an end and we will all be killed or
> at least fired, thrown in jail and tortured by methods which are
> not allowed under the Geneva Convention but are allowed by the
> current nominee for U.S. Attorney General. Sob! Sniff!
What's your point? Heh.
- Next message: Joseph: "Splitting fields"
- Previous message: Mack: "Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- In reply to: Nora Baron: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Next in thread: Rick Decker: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Reply: Rick Decker: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
