Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud

On Sep 3, 1:42 am, rossum <rossu...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:19:32 -0700, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But if the idea turns out to be a brilliant one which means factoring
is not a hard problem after all, then how can mathematicians who not
only couldn't figure it out, but who ignored it when presented with it
be considered to be true experts in the field?

In its current version surrogate factoring is too slow to be
considered "brilliant". Only when you have speeded it up sufficiently

I asked, what if?

can it be considered brilliant. Slow factoring methods are a
dime-a-dozen. The difficult part is finding a *fast* factoring
method, that is a polynomial time rather than an exponential time
method. So far your method seems to be exponential time, or do you
have a proof that it is polynomial time?


If practicality is all that matters then acknowledge that "pure math"
is a bogus concept.

In the real world, only math that is practical matters, which is a
major point I'm making.

Let's say that down the line someone proves that surrogate factoring
not only is polynomial time, but that it blows away all other
factoring approaches known, what does that say about the current math
community's expertise in this area?

Note, I'm talking a hypothetical.

The question is, what if it turns out to be this incredibly powerful
factoring technique that most of the math community ignored and people
like you talked down?

How expert then could you really be?

All the indications so far are that factoring is a hard problem, which
can only be confirmed by the fact that you have been working on it for
years and have still not cracked it.

[snip]


I came up with the approach of using k = 2x mod T along with x^2 = y^2
mod T, last August, so a little over a year ago.

Only within the last few days have I completed a very thorough
analysis.

That's not years. It's a bit over a year with crucial research only
done within the last few days.

The years were involved in trying to take a concept to concrete
reality, and it took humanity thousands of years to take some concepts
to reality, like being able to fly.


With my prime counting research I first found my prime counting
function, and then proved how it was different from anything else
previously known as to this day no one can give any other partial
difference equation used to count prime numbers, and no other known
that finds primes on its own.

Your prime counting function works fine.

rossum


But mathematicians have said it's not important, when I can note even
now that in all of the mathematical literature there is to this day no
other known prime counting method that relies on a partial difference
equation.

But the math community ignores it or posters on sci.math say it's not
important or is just a rehash of what was known.

And with my non-polynomial factorization research posters proclaimed
it wrong, and I got a crucial bit of research published, so they
declared the journal system flawed, and then downplayed it when the
math journal itself died.

So now I invented a new factoring method, but NOW supposedly that is
easy and trivial to do, where it only matters if that method is the
fastest known at each point in time as if it doesn't take time to
figure out best approaches.

See the pattern?

No matter what, someone from the math community is there to downplay
any and everything that would indicate value in my research, so it is
clear there is an absolute position taken that you people are ready
to put your expertise against my research.

That forces me to break you with something that you can't just claim
is wrong or not important, understand?

But then, if I am right, shouldn't the math community take some
penalty?

Shouldn't it pay some price?

Shouldn't it? If I have to break you with a demonstration that you
can't just downplay or lie about, and in so doing prove that you DID
lie all these years about all the previous research, what should your
community's punishment be?

What punishment fits the crime?


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • JSH: Unfair burden
    ... Surrogate factoring is my answer to a math community that does not ... Mathematicians are still fighting to ignore my research which pushes ... IN answer I get lies about even the most basic mathematics so that the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Take a breath
    ... I rather doubt "the leadership in the math community" finds any comfort ... in my USENET posts. ... The world has shifted in its trust of mathematicians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Take a breath
    ... I rather doubt "the leadership in the math community" finds any comfort ... The world has shifted in its trust of mathematicians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Take a breath
    ... I rather doubt "the leadership in the math community" finds any comfort ... The world has shifted in its trust of mathematicians. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Lets play what if, factoring problem stuff
    ... Yesterday I decided to put up my latest factoring ideas, ... Would it change your opinion of the math community if it turns out I'm ... I lose hope in an impossible situation. ...
    (sci.skeptic)