Re: Math discovery versus math society

From: Proginoskes (proginoskes_at_email.msn.com)
Date: 02/20/05 

Date: 19 Feb 2005 17:09:35 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> 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.

"Interesting"? Try "undermining".

> What? You think that's a proof that it's all wrong?

No, I'm sure it works in some cases (maybe one, anyway). But for an
algorithm to work, it must work ALL THE TIME. If it messes up once, it
fails the test.

> 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

Yes, and NEITHER works.

> 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

You have a finite, deterministic equation, so there's no "randomness"
involved here. What you mean to say here, I think is:

1'. There is no orderly way to find Ax.

Consider the analogy of "computable numbers", which are real numbers
which can be approximated to any decimal place by an algorithm (a
Turing Machine, to be precise). There are only a countable number of
Turing Machines, and each Turing Machine can produce at most one
computable number, so there are only a countable number of "computable
numbers". But since there are an uncountable number of real numbers,
there exists a real number which isn't computable. However, there's no
way to say what it is because it is, by definition, not computable.

This is what's known as a proof, and it only uses facts from standard
set theory (and the idea of countability) discovered by Cantor over a
century ago.

> 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,

I do not believe this. See my 1' instead.

> then I have discovered
> the world's first perfect random number generating math equations.

As I've said before, "random number generation" is a contradiction in
terms, at a fundamental level. It's like finding a triangle that has
four sides, or a circle whose area isn't pi r^2. It's IMPOSSIBLE at a
basic level, that of definition.

> 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.

Not really. You may be able to find Ax for some values of M, and not
for others. There is an entire world between the statements "P is
always true" and "P is always false".

> Now I'm pointing out the actual possibilities, and if that last one
> is true, then it should be possible to *prove* it mathematically.

And, since you're claiming that it's true, you have the burdon of
proof. Again, this is standard mathematical procedure, not something
that has anything to do with "mathematical society."

> 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.

Maybe that's already the case. Maybe NSA can break any code and has
been able to for the past 20 years. And since NSA is the ultra-secret
part of the governemnt, no information about this process would be
allowed out.

> 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.

When I came across your posts for the first time, I wasn't sure; I
approached it with an open mind. But every time you've posted since
then, you've stuck your foot in your mouth. If the sun rises in the
east every day for 10,000 years, will it rise in the east tomorrow?
Almost anyone would say so. Similarly (this is an analogy here),
someone who reads your posts will gradually come to the conclusion that
you don't have anything useful to offer.

I also approached your original post with an open mind. I used your
equations, I followed your rules (as best as I could understand them,
and interpreting them several different ways, to give you the benefit
of the doubt), but the very first example I used was an utter failure.

> The other possibility is that you are insecure.

I'm not ranting about secret societies here, or terrorists, or THE
HAMMER. You are. That makes you the insecure one.

> 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.

Simply wrong. As I've told you before, many times: THE TEST FAILED. And
you yourself said the test was a simple way of seeing whether you were
wrong. You're not allowed to say "try this to determine whether I'm
wrong" and only accept the answer if it proves you're right. Again,
accepting the result, even if it proves you wrong, is standard
mathematical procedure.

> And your beliefs won't change a thing, except maybe give certain
> people more time.

And posting misleading information is supposed to help society?

If I may hypothesize here, suppose there is a secret organization which
is in control of the world, and they way to stay in control. Instead of
letting people work their way towards the truth, this organization
releases information which is plausible but not true, information that
requires a lot of time and trouble to be exposed as false. Then people
will waste their time on that information, wasting their time on
unimportant information, instead of going after the real thing, buying
more time for the organization.

How does this NOT describe your posts?

     --- Christopher Heckman

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The problems in comp.lang.c
    ... The most vocal propnents of this "topicality only" ... C like debuggers, the stack, lcc-win proposals for language ... C99 is viewed as an error, and any code posted that uses STANDARD ... Those people could just ignore my posts. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: The problems in comp.lang.c
    ... One of them told me that my posts about debuggers ... C like debuggers, the stack, lcc-win proposals for language ... C99 is viewed as an error, and any code posted that uses STANDARD ... positive posters here (I'd especially like to thank jacob navia for his ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • ahh feel like reminiscing
    ... Following both your posts on that disgusting thread you had, ... to you, that you have indeed contributed to your society, as I have to. ... No offense taken, no apologies required. ... Not in a noisy and provoking manner, but in private. ...
    (soc.culture.filipino)
  • Re: Co-ed Combat by Kingsley Browne
    ... Note that altho' the posts are presented on the page ... supplied them to _The Volokh Conspiracy_. ... "Society can craft human females warriors, ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Intelligence - one of degree?
    ... It exists in this universe because of the basic ... without providing a reason why that definiton is problematic or incorrect. ... As I've said in other posts. ... > brain-washing society has done to you. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)