Re: JSH: SF: Finally, surrogate factoring



David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:54:03 -0400, Rick Decker <rdecker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Tim Peters wrote:

[...]

What I don't understand is how anything other than that outcome could be _hoped_ for here. No amount of rearranging and cross-substituting the initial equations (whatever they may be) is going to yield new information, and there's never a step that even requires the quantities to be integers (as opposed to, e.g., arbitrary complex numbers). How can someone imagine that insight into integer factorization could result from this insight-less symbol-pushing?

I think that what we interpret as obfuscation on James' part is actually
a consequence of the fact that his understanding is extremely shallow.
This is, I think, the reason that he thinks his "prime counting
function" is truly new and innovative--he really is incapable of even
the slightest bit of abstraction that to all mathematicians is as
natural as breathing.


Huh. Ya think?

You missed my point. Until recently I thought that it was James'
narcisism that motivated his jaw-dropping refusal to see that
there was nothing new in his prime-counting function. Now, though,
I have come to the view that he's lacking an important faculty
that all mathematicians have. It's pitiful, really.

Both you guys must be new here.

Hrrumph. Now you're playing the newbie card. I think I'll
contact the OSU administration.
<snip>


Regards,

Rick

.