Re: JSH: Mystery increases

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:26:32 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I was actually very surprised at the arguments that ensued over my
solution to the factoring problem.

It is a very simple argument with a rather basic proof, so why were
posters so diligent in throwing up distractions around it, or in
making false statements?
Your proof is incomplete. Any solution to the factoring problem has
to be *fast*; a slow method is not a solution to the problem.

There are two easy ways to prove that a method is fast. One is to do
a big-O analysis of the algorithm and show that the algorithm is
faster than existing algorithms. The other is to actually factor a
large (say 200 bit) number quickly.

Unless and until you have done either of these then your proof is
incomplete. Your method may well find factors, but so does trial
division. There is nothing you have produced to prove that your
method is any faster than trial division. Speed is of the essence
here James, and none of your work has any relation to the speed at
which your algorithm will factor a large number.


After all, it is the factoring problem.

Crucial to me was getting help and it looks like one poster has
stepped up in a huge way, but remarkably posters who have argued with
me are acting almost as if that thread is invisible.
We were asked not to post to that thread, and I for one am respecting
that request. I am certainly reading the thread with interest.


I have YEARS of having had major mathematical discoveries and learned
a long time ago that proof wasn't enough to convince people in the
mathematical community, but I didn't realize just how bad it truly is.
Your work contains too many errors James. Where you are correct, as
with your Prime Counting function, most people here are prepared to
agree that it is correct. Where you work is incorrect, as with all
previous iterations of your "solution" to the factoring problem, then
your errors are pointed out to you. You have cried "wolf" so many
times now that many people are very skeptical of what you say. Your
reputation precedes you.


Mathematical proof has not only routinely been denied, people have
behaved as if it would always be, and even now with the factoring
problem itself solved they have continued.

What is the explanation for this behavior?
They find flaws in your proofs and so treat them as flawed proofs. A
flawed proof is not a proof, as I am sure you will agree.


How are any of you justifying doing these things? I mean, you pretend
to be interested in mathematics. But you show behavior that indicates
almost a complete contempt for it, what gives?
If your proofs have flaws in them then such behaviour is perfectly
justified. Most of what you have shown to us has had flaws in it.


The mystery is well beyond the bizarre. Like you people destroyed a
mathematical journal. You've ignored incredible and dramatic
proofs.
We have ignored proofs with incredible and dramatic errors in them.


And now with the factoring problem solved the entire Internet will be
affected, but some of you STILL continue with the same behavior?

Do any of you actually believe in mathematical proof?
I prefer worked examples myself. How about factoring a 50 bit number
with your latest method.

It is much easier to check a worked example than to check a proof.
Just multiply the two output number together and see if the result
matches the input number. Even we can understand that. Since we
obviously cannot understand your proofs, perhaps we might be able to
understand an example. How about it James?

rossum



James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ... No James, you need to be more accurate in your statements here. ... many or all of the factor pairs of D-1. ... posters continually present equations for r- t ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ... many or all of the factor pairs of D-1. ... So just ask yourself why posters have to present their own equations ... correct equations are James. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Remarkably odd
    ... factoring problem. ... That is not rocket science James. ... I've argued about it a bit and watched in amazement as posters have ... I find it remarkably odd that you refuse to use your method to factor ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Mystery increases
    ... It is a very simple argument with a rather basic proof, ... it is the factoring problem. ... stepped up in a huge way, but remarkably posters who have argued with ... to be interested in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ... I am not qualified to speak about most of your results, but the one I feel most qualified to speak on, your attempt to prove P = NP, I had a strong feeling from you: your proofs were based on "it feels right," as opposed to fully rigorous derivations. ... It appears to be mostly intuitions that you claim proved you correct; intuitions about your algorithms led me to suspect gaping holes. ... An outsider who claims to be able to refute 100-year old cornerstones of mathematics is more likely to be wrong than right. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading