Re: Question of P=NP, Anatoly Plotnikov

Kees wrote:
José Carlos Santos wrote:
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:

So my paper got published in the LAST edition of
SWJPAM and sci.math
readers mounted an email campaign which was
successful in getting it
censored:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html

It's amazing that even in such a simple, objective
and clear-cut
situation you are unable to tell the truth. Your
paper got published in
the second issue of 2003 of the SWJPAM. After that,
they also published
the first issue of 2004:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol1-04.html


I stand corrected. So there was one other issue
published after mine.

Thanks for pointing that out!


And, of course, you fail again to tell us what was
the explanation
given to you by the editor to explain his decision
of eliminating your
paper. But that's not a surprise.


He sent me an email claiming it was accidentally
published and that he
pulled from the wrong pile. He included notes that
he claimed were
from one of the reviewers citing errors in the paper,
but they actually
were copies from an email from one of the sci.math
posters, which I
knew as that poster had posted what they were going
to email the day
before!

I apologize for the error about the last publication.
I just hadn't
bothered to notice.


if you don't bother to check out simple things like that, why should anybody take you seriously when you claim RSA doesn't work and Galois theory is all just one big mistake???


So you extrapolate from a simple error, which I acknowledged where a
journal that published and retracted a key paper of mine, later got out
one more edition which I forgot about, before it keeled over and died
as reason in and of itself to question everything else?

I think most reasonable adults would find your position, extreme.

I made a simple mistake, acknowledged it, move on.

Turning that into this massive error that by itself brings into
question everything else is just, well, just extreme.

And I don't say that Galois Theory is just one big mistake.

As to whether or not RSA is still effective, that's a debatable
question.

Having the factoring problem solved theoretically does not mean that
anyone necessarily has worked out all the practical issues, or even
bothered to use it.

It's like how having Einstein's theories doesn't in and of itself give
you an atomic bomb.



I have no problems talking in detail about the
particulars of this case
as it is such a big one with so much history from
Abel and Galois to
the present day, with modern encryption, big
business, and the academic
world on trial.

It is one of the greatest stories ever told.


by the way - what is it that you claim when you say Galois theory is just wrong. Do you claim the general quintic can be solved by radicals? If so, can you prove it? Do you claim to have an efficient factoring algorithm? If so can you demonstrate its efficiency? before you do any of that don't excpect people to take you seriously.



I don't say that Galois Theory is just wrong.

I have presented equations solving the factoring problem, plus how they
are proven to be a solution as attempting to solve them in terms of
factors of your target gives you quintics.

Since that's a key point you clearly haven't bothered to read my
original post carefully.

The reason that the equations I give must be solutions to the factoring
problem is that they are not generally solvable as attempting to
generally solve them gives you quintics, so I'm relying on the proof
that quintics are not generally solvable.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to determine that a polynomial can be solved into radicals?
    ... since you again did not bother: ... It's not Galois Theory that you are lacking here. ... study problems about polynomial equations using groups. ... book in Chinese by translating it into finnish... ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Question of P=NP, Anatoly Plotnikov
    ... from one of the reviewers citing errors in the paper, ... posters, which I ... if you don't bother to check out simple things like that, why should anybody take you seriously when you claim RSA doesn't work and Galois theory is all just one big mistake??? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Way too interesting
    ... And on this group, surprising even me, there is still the usual ... microscope ever built--a simple solution to the factoring problem ... Why should I bother? ... like interesting mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Way too interesting
    ... And on this group, surprising even me, there is still the usual ... microscope ever built--a simple solution to the factoring problem ... Why should I bother? ... like interesting mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Way too interesting
    ... And on this group, surprising even me, there is still the usual ... microscope ever built--a simple solution to the factoring problem ... Why should I bother? ... like interesting mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading