Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled

From: Timothy Little (tim-via-n.i.net_at_little-possums.net)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: 31 Jan 2005 09:03:32 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> By then the shock will be so much greater, and it could have been
> prevented if any of you could follow a simple mathematical theory,
> and accept something as true because it had been proven true
> mathematically.

You haven't presented any proof that you can factor all composite
n-digit numbers in a number of steps bounded by k n^p for some fixed k
and p. You haven't even presented a proof that your method works!

Since you haven't provided any proof, people have been kind to you by
merely asking for a practical demonstration. A demonstration isn't
proof, but would be an indication that a proof might be worth looking
for. You haven't even managed to provide that! All you've done is
provide a failure-prone algorithm that somehow manages to be slower
than dividing by successive primes, when it works at all.

> They *claim* that proof is all that matters.

I don't claim that, but suppose I did: if I ever see a proof of your
assertions, I'll believe them. Merely saying you have a proof, as you
have been doing, is not proof.

> But this is the world I'm stuck with, a world full of lies, where
> people often say things they are not, make claims they do not back up,
> and act like it never matters.

Seems to me you're doing your very best to fit in to your vision of
the world. Good luck with that, hope it makes you happy one day.

- Tim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theory versus implemention, Im puzzled
    ... Because you have not explained your mathematical theory, ... Well, if your theory is correct, it should apply to particular factoring ... Claims are cheap. ... >accept something as true because it had been proven true ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Theory versus implemention, Im puzzled
    ... Because you have not explained your mathematical theory, ... Well, if your theory is correct, it should apply to particular factoring ... Claims are cheap. ... >accept something as true because it had been proven true ...
    (sci.math)