Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- From: jshsucks@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Aug 2006 13:15:11 -0700
jstevh@xxxxxxx wrote:
Rotwang wrote:
You're missing a lot of it, because this thread didn't really start on
sci.math, and doesn't belong here at all. It started on sci.crypt
My mistake, apologies to James.
No prob. I'm not really all that thin-skinned. I can't be.
And just so this is settled, my thinking was that you could use a
simple property of quadratic residues to build up to large primes
quickly, by iterating with something like
n^2 - 2
but Tim Peters noted that what I'd found was already well-known and
demonstrated that you could get similar behavior with other stuff, so I
lost interest.
Now to me, much simpler would have been some objective reply to my
original posts on this subject, without all the other stuff, and things
could have been much nicer.
I really don't like all the useless arguing, though I like to
argue--about the value of the ideas themselves--not with all this
personal and political crap, but when I try to just be objective, other
posters have a field day.
Years of experience have thought me to hit back quite quickly, or you
find that other people start repeating what posters going after you in
personal ways are saying, and in my case, they even put stuff on
webpages!!!
So it can be a really big deal for me to just try and let them be and
take the high road.
Kind of why politics in other areas disintegrates so rapidly, as the
candidate who tries to take the high road and not sling mud---tends to
get taken apart by the one who does.
James Harris
James, you keep talking about how you have to strike back because
people are attacking you. You claim that they attack first and then you
retaliate. This is untrue. Almost every one of your posts has political
content in it. Even your posts about math usuallly end in some diatribe
about how the math community is against you and how they are all liars.
Often you also make unproven claims to go along with your newest
"research", like you stating on sci.crypt that you had come up with a
way to find primes that was better than any known way. You could have
just posted your idea and stated that you thought it was good or that
it showed promise, but in your usual way you made claims that had no
basis in reality.
It is that kind of bravado that rubs people the wrong way. The original
person who's thread you invaded was looking for real help, not
unsubstantiated claims from someone trying to toot their own horn. You
had no idea if your method was good or not(turns out it wasn't), but
you did not hesitate in offering it up to the original poster. Would
you have felt good if he would have wasted hours of his time trying to
use your method when there were methods that are proven to work well?
The others were trying to help, you were trying to gain attention for
your own unproven work like usual.
.
- References:
- Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- From: Tim Peters
- Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- From: Rotwang
- Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- From: jstevh
- Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- Prev by Date: Re: Need help with computing volumes using the divergence (Gauss) theorem
- Next by Date: Re: Primes, probability and politics
- Previous by thread: Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- Next by thread: Re: Finding large primes, quickly
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
