Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring
From: flip (flip_alpha_at_safebunch.com)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: Tim Peters: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:18:24 -0800
<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109899124.650760.266760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The basic algorithm is now perfect. I think there are far faster more
> elegant algorithms out there, but at this point, it's proof of concept
> time.
>
Mr. Harris,
after ten years of your moronic postings, I finally understand you!
In the Harrisonian "psycho"-logic object oriented mathematics (have you
blossomed from the Harrisonian cocoon into the worlds top number theorist
yet?), you define "perfect" as being "not fast", "not elegant", "not
useful", "not understood", "not practical", "not proven" and "not worth cow
dung"!
SIMPLY BRILLIANT!
Why didn't you just state this explicitly ten years ago?
Listen to yourself MAN!!
- Next message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Sieve distinction, prime counting"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: Tim Peters: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]