Re: Math discovery versus math society
jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/19/05
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Gabriel's Theorem - what I have learned thus far."
- Previous message: Tony: "Re: Question on Egorov's theorem"
- In reply to: Proginoskes: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Feb 2005 05:33:25 -0800
Proginoskes wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > I am on my fourth major mathematical discovery. It is a new way to
> > factor integers. Mathematicians have so far managed to avoid
> > properly acknowledging all four of my discoveries.
>
> And if you check the thread you started about the "simple test",
you'll
> find that your latest discovery fails the test; there is no way to
> interpret your instructions to obtain a factor of 91. (I used M = 91,
j
> = 10 and couldn't even get a rational number for Ax.) You have yet to
> respond to this statement.
>
Well yeah, that thesis was wrong. I noticed that failure and find it
interesting.
What? You think that's a proof that it's all wrong?
If so, why?
There are two possibilities given the equations:
Ax= Az(-Az +/- sqrt((Az - 2M^2)^2 - 4TM^2))/(2j^2 - 2Az)
Az= Ax(-Ax +/- sqrt((Ax - 2j^2)^2 + 4Tj^2))/(2M^2 - 2Ax)
where T = M^2 - j^2
where it's trivial that there must exist a *rational* Ax for some
integer Az that has a single prime factor of M, which are:
1. The Ax that works is random
2. There is a way to determine Ax
Those are the two possibilities. I suggested that the denominator of
Ax must contain prime factors of T, which I thought I'd proven.
I was wrong.
Now, if you believe that the method is random, then I have discovered
the world's first perfect random number generating math equations.
If you can't stomach that possibility, then you're stuck with Ax being
determinable, where possibly you hope that that determination depends
on knowing the factors of M.
Now I'm pointing out the actual possibilities, and if that last one is
true, then it should be possible to *prove* it mathematically.
If not, then there must be some way to factor M using those equations
that is possibly a wee bit complicated and hasn't been put in some
Usenet post.
If so, let's say some organization figures that method out, and
ohmigod, it takes a hundred lines of code to implement the correct
method!!!
Now that organization can factor large numbers.
You people seem to labor under the misconception that this is just
about some guy trying to get your attention, maybe because he's just
sick, as if there are no other possibilities.
The other possibility is that you are insecure. Some organization can
use those equations, develop a fully working theory, and maybe seize
money out of a Cayman account thought to be private.
Or they may just read your musing to your lover about how horrible your
spouse is, and when is the next time you're getting together for a love
tryst.
But make no mistake, the math is not only clear, it's simple.
And your beliefs won't change a thing, except maybe give certain people
more time.
James Harris
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Gabriel's Theorem - what I have learned thus far."
- Previous message: Tony: "Re: Question on Egorov's theorem"
- In reply to: Proginoskes: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Next in thread: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: Math discovery versus math society"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|