Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form

From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 02/10/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:30:48 -0500

[JSH]
>>> ...
>>> I say, quit hiding things, put up your example where I can see it,
>>> like in a thread where I'm paying attention, as if you're right I'd
>>> like to know.

[Tim Peters]
>> Rick replied in one of the threads you started. How is he supposed
>> to guess which of those you pay attention to? If you're so bored by
>> your proliferation of redundant threads that you don't pay attention
>> to them anymore, and are too lazy to do a simple search, tough luck.

[JSH]
> I don't need luck. Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring.

LOL! If you thought people here have been competing for the honor of that
title, believe me when I say everyone is happy to acknowledge that you're
its inventor. Nay, positively eager.

But are you implying that if Rick were the inventor, then he wouldn't have
needed luck to guess which of the dozens of threads you started you were
still paying attention to? You really didn't respond to anything I said,
although you echoed back one word of it.

> And I mentioned in an earlier post that I'd tested out this latest
> twist on my own idea and found it didn't work, over the weekend.

Despite your claims that you proved it worked, and that everyone else was
deliberately obscuring your method in order to ... oh, I've lost track of
all your accusations.

> So, deep down some part of me knew it didn't work anyway, so it wasn't
> worth the effort to try and find some post out in the haystack.

But it was worth your effort to insult Rick repeatedly, and despite that you
apparently now agree he was right all along. He didn't insult you, you
know. You owe him an apology.

> Nonetheless talking it out paid dividends as the full solution was just
> an inversion away.
>
> I find it interesting that no one else thought to just invert x, and
> pull out the complete solution,

Sorry, but inverting x doesn't work either. If you post a specification for
your new algorithm (find Rick's message for a concrete example of what that
means, if you don't know), I'm sure you'll get a small counterexample back
within a day.

> but I seem to have a gift for this sort of thing.

In this respect, yes, it seems you can always come up with another way to
complicate the problem, and (more amazingly than that) convince yourself it
_has_ to work.

> And yes, in case you're wondering, I did find a short proof of Fermat's
> Last Theorem,

You should write it up. If true, that would be an extraordinary
accomplishment indeed.

> and I did find THE prime counting function, though people don't seem
> to realize its importance for some reason,

I've said before that I'm fond of that algorithm. It's cute! I don't
believe there's anything _essentially_ new in it, though, and don't believe
it was an advance in either theory or practice.

> though it has application in number theory and physics,

Your specific algorithm does, or prime numbers do? If the former, sorry, I
haven't seen an application of your algorithm.

> and I did find a problem in algebraic number theory with erroneous
> thinking by mathematicians over a hundred years ago that lasted to
> this day.

Sorry again, I don't believe that. I also find it very hard to understand
how you could fail to understand the detailed refutations you were given.

At this rate, I expect you'll eventually claim that the real reason your
factoring attempts don't pay off is that there's a problem in integers
themselves, which has bamboozled bovine mathematicians for millenia before
your studly arrival. Then you can claim that your method (whatever it is at
the time) actually does work, and always did, but on "integer objects", not
the flawed old "integers" everyone else foolishly uses. It would be a nice
complement to the nebulous "ring of objects" you need to hypothesize to
prevent your polynomial factorization stuff from hitting simple
counterexamples.

> That's not even all, as I have work in logic that I just don't bother
> discussing.
>
> I have more discoveries that I simply don't see the point in talking
> about, as people find it hard to comprehend the simple ones.

Indeed, advancing the state of the art in mathematical logic by applying a
quadratic equation is too unlikely for me to even imagine <wink>.

> There is no reason that a sane world should have left me to fiddle with
> the factoring problem as there was every reason to believe that I would
> succeed, and with a very basic solution, which I did.

Eh? Sorry, but you still haven't produced anything here that can't be
beaten by choosing trial divisors randomly. I'm surprised you came back to
factoring, because you really can't gain a lick of credibility in this area
without actually factoring _some_ "hard" composite. All the bluff and
bluster in the universe can't cover up a failure to do so. I'll be
delighted if you succeed.

> You people had no good reasons to let this happen this way.

What are you talking about? You pee on people who try to help you, refuse
to answer their questions, and can't break out of monologue-from-Mars mode
long enough to collaborate on even the simplest points. That the rest of us
are able to help each other out isn't actually due to a conspiracy to
suppress revolutionary truths.

> But you did--seeming to enjoy insulting me more than anything else,

Most people do, yes. You bring out the worst in many people, because your
own behavior is so jaw-droppingly poor. But _some_ people sincerely try to
help you. Amazingly, they're the ones you piss on the most.

> which I find frustrating as you seem to be weird little children with
> barely even a basic comprehension of mathematics--and now the full
> solution to the factoring problem is not only known, but easily
> implemented, as the math is childishly simple.

If so, then by your own words, if you fail to factor a "hard" composite
soon, you're less capable than a child. I wouldn't hold you to that
standard myself, but you've got no complaint if others take you at your word
here.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... >> your proliferation of redundant threads that you don't pay attention ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... But are you implying that if Rick were the inventor, ... > the factoring problem as there was every reason to believe that I would ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... Given that Rick ... > don't seem to realize its importance for some reason, ... algorithm and closely related to Legendre's algorithm. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... Given that Rick ... > don't seem to realize its importance for some reason, ... algorithm and closely related to Legendre's algorithm. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ...  Any solution to the factoring problem has ... The mathematics shows that you can factor a composite D, ... The proof shows that one of the combinations of factors of D-1 must ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ...  Any solution to the factoring problem has ... many or all of the factor pairs of D-1. ... a big-O analysis of the algorithm and show that the algorithm is ...
    (sci.math)