Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud

On Sep 3, 11:39 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:57 pm, marcus_b <marcus_bruck...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 3, 2:58 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 3, 11:18 am, marcus_b <marcus_bruck...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 2, 12:19 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 1, 11:27 pm, junoexpress <MTBrenne...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I believe the burden of proof is on you.

Not necessarily if you believe that a concept can be of interest in
and of itself to people who are supposedly experts in a field.

Stupid.
Nobody will be even the slightest bit interested in it until you give
some indication (I'm not even saying proof, which I know you can't do)
that it's performance is in *some way* optimal.
Why should they waste their time on your half-baked ideas when they're
trained in the field and know they have ideas that are at least worth
working on.

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?

A hypothetical. Hypotheticals are cheap.

What if THEY are the ones deluding themselves and doing research that
is valueless because they actually lack real mathematical ability?

So they are incapable of seeing important research as well?

More hypotheticals. You are counting chickens before they are
hatched, in fact before there is any reason to think they will
ever hatch.

You might as well say: "What if pigs are actually able to
fly, and zoologists have overlooked this possibility for
centuries?" Should zoologists really spend a lot of time
worrying about this?

Challenging Santos to commit every dime is part of that action, as to
con artists, what really is more important than money?

I don't know, you tell us. You've been perpetuating a con job on
sci.math as long as I can remember, always promising something and
never having delivered on one promise. If that's not a con-job, I
don't know what is. What's even worse is that a lot of it you've done
dishonestly, using others to work out things you can't do, all the
while boasting how much smarter you are then the rest of humanity.

Except I HAVE delivered. Instead of just arguing with people over my
proof of Fermat's Last Theorem I wrote a paper over a key results that
followed from it and got it published.

The publication was a careless error on the part of an
incompetent editor. You knew before the paper was submitted
that there were fatal objections. You delivered, all right.
You delivered crap. And you got what you deserved, and more,
in return.

Posters on sci.math then declared that the journal system was flawed
and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!!

Oh, no. No one has said math journals routinely publish
false papers. There is no evidence for this in general.
That particular journal had a poor track record, having
previously published at least one very questionable paper.
The papers in it were often poorly edited, and a surprising
fraction of them were by the editor himself.

Others mounted an email campaign against the paper and convinced the
journal editors it was false, so they yanked it, and later the journal
shut down.

The paper was wrong to its very core and wrong in details.
It is NORMAL BEHAVIOR to write to the editor when an incorrect
paper is published. The editor lied to you regarding peer
review. The editor acted AGAINST explicit advice from
letter-writers here and yanked your paper with no explanation.
It is plausible that the editor was pressured to discontinue
the journal because of his incompetence and dishonesty. His
handling of your worthless paper was contributing evidence.

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 algorithm is a minor variant of Legendre's method.
Your algorithm (not 'your function') is not competitive with
current methods in speed for counting primes. Neither you nor
anyone else have indicated why your 'partial difference
equation' is useful or important.

Posters on sci.math when challenged with those points shift the
definition of "difference equation" to a non-standard one, and ignore
the second point about finding primes or just lie about it.

Repeatedly, by all normal standards, I achieve and posters deny in
unreasonable ways all achievements while making dubious achievements
of their own--like killing a math journal.

REASONABLE people who listen to me talk about the factoring problem
can note that I'm making sense,

No, liar. REASONABLE people here have repeatedly tried to
implement your many variants of surrogate factoring. None are
remotely close to competitive with existing methods for
factoring integers. Further, you have not provided any
rationale for why factors of a surrogate might be connected
algebraically or probabilistically to nontrivial factors of
the original target. It looks like your rationale is the
following: "I have this vague hunch that factoring an integer
S which is a function of the target T might have a high
probability of producing nontrivial factors of T. The reason
this might work is, I am a genius and ideas generated by
geniuses often turn out to be right. No one can prove that my
vague hunch is wrong, so I am being unfairly ignored by the
evil hacks who call themselves mathematicians."

Sounds like you're ready to defend on every point, so your position is
clear, and now if that position is refuted ultimately by the evidence,
so that everything you said falls apart like a house of cards, what
then?

Get this through your thick skull. "What if?" is a useless
exercise, particularly when you have given absolutely no rationale,
no proof, and no numerical evidence. What if pigs can fly? Won't
all the zoologists who have neglected to consider this look pretty
stupid? Sure! What if aliens landed at Roswell? Won't all of us
skeptics who refused to get worried about it be embarrassed?
Sure! So should we all stop doing everything else and start
poring over pig aerodynamics and weather-balloon remnants? Sure!

Go back and read my comparison of your SF versus Dixon's method.
There is a reason, a reason you can point to explicitly, that
Dixon's method works. Your idea lacks one of his key ingredients.
He may have started with a crude hunch, as you have, but he didn't
stop there, as you have. He saw a way to use his ingenuity to build
in structure. Then he tested it and found it promising.

You want us to pay attention to your hunch but without the
key ingredients that Dixon included: a good rational idea and
numerical evidence. Sure, we may look stupid if your
hypothetical turns out to be right. You could say that about
almost any nitwit hypothetical that cranks come up with. We
would have a much higher probability of looking stupid if we
spent a lot of time trying to get every crank's pet notions to
work.


My previous post on this was incomplete - starting over ---


And I think that you resist all evidence for class reasons, and a need
to try and hold onto a nasty worldview that some people in the United
States want because it justifies dominating other "races" based on the
idea that they are inherently genetically inferior.


You are totally off base on this. I have no class or racist agenda.
I do not believe any "race" is genetically inferior to any other.
My basis for criticizing your work is that your math is almost
entirely wrong. More on this below -

If you acknowledge that mathematicians made mistakes that I
discovered, or missed simple mathematical ideas that I've found, you
lose the genetic argument.


Could be, but I have absolutely no interest in any
genetic argument anyway.

You can no longer claim that "whites" are born to rule, and that
claims otherwise are about being politically correct, or to keep
"minorities" from rioting.


I have never made any such claims.

It is a US position against the future of the world, where
mathematical proof hasn't mattered because people like you hold that
view as a security blanket believing that if you can manipulate and
lie enough to control populations while hiding that from them, then
that must mean you are smarter, better and deserve to survive when and
if the time comes that a decision has to be made, who lives and who
dies.


I am not lying.

So to you lying about lying and getting away with it is just proof
that you are smarter, as how else can intelligent people ignore
proofs?

You don't have proofs. You have wrong mathematics.

How could they ignore publication in a math journal unless
they were too stupid to understand why people like you do those kinds
of tests to be more certain of your control.


Your "publication" was a clerical error. The paper in question
was wrong from start to finish.

The US invaded Iraq on lies and pretenses and gets away with it partly
to test that control.


We agree on this.

The US has a peculiar position of living by contrasts and
contradictions.


True enough. The US attacking Iraq was the greatest recruiting
tool that Al Qaeda could have asked for. We will not recover from
this horrible mistake for generations. But it has nothing to
do with the evaluation of your mathematics. I don't see why you
want to connect this microcosm to that macrocosm.

The real point I'm making is how far some of you will go to hold on to
some very perverted views about the human species.


You are totally wrong about this.

You think you are born better so that you feel more secure.


No. Just plain no.

And I tell you that you are just another human being and what you are
is about merit, not race.


I don't need you telling me that.

You asked previously that we show why your surrogate factoring
idea cannot work. Here is what I think is the core reason. Your
algorithm, like that of Fermat, Dixon, and others is putatively
based on the idea that if you can find X and Y such that

X^2 = Y^2 mod T,

then you have a good chance of factoring T by considering

GCD(X + Y, T) and GCD(X - Y, T).

So you choose k and n, and then define your surrogate S by:

S = 2k^2 + nT.

You factor S as, say, S = F1*F2.

Then you define

X = (F1 + F2 - 2k)/2 and

Y = (F1 - F2)/2.

From these,

X + Y = F1 - k, and

X - Y = F2 - k.

Then you compute

GCD(X + Y, T) and

GCD(X - Y, T),

in the hope that one of these is a nontrivial factor of T.

The problem is this: with X and Y as defined above, in
general you do NOT have

X^2 = Y^2 mod T.

This means that there is no particular relationship
between factors of T and (X + Y) and (X - Y). You are
thus missing a key ingredient which is central to other
Fermat-difference-of-squares factoring algorithms. I
think this is a large part of the explanation for why
your method is very inefficient relative to others.

You asked for an explanation. I think this is it.

Marcus.

James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud
    ... is not a hard problem after all, then how can mathematicians who not ... and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!! ... There is no evidence for this in general. ... fraction of them were by the editor himself. ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Comprehending the result
    ... always find algebraic integers to cover the initial result. ... objections CANNOT come from people who actually are mathematicians, ... journals weren't making the same objections and hey, ... Some of you sent some emails to the chief editor and he caved. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Unfortunately, selective reporting of trials does occur, and it distorts the body of evidence availa
    ... studies cannot influence the thinking of patients, clinicians, other ... member journals, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ... for publication, registration in a public trials registry. ... Medical Journal; Dr Hoey is editor, CMAJ; Dr Horton is editor, The Lancet; ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud
    ... and that math journals routinely publish false papers!!! ... There is no evidence for this in general. ... fraction of them were by the editor himself. ... current methods in speed for counting primes. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud
    ... No one has said math journals routinely publish ... fraction of them were by the editor himself. ... current methods in speed for counting primes. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading