Re: JSH: Mystery increases

On Feb 28, 3:29 pm, rossum <rossu...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:26:32 -0800 (PST), JSH <jst...@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.

The mathematics shows that you can factor a composite D, about as fast
as you can factor D-1.

The proof shows that one of the combinations of factors of D-1 must
give a non-trivial factorization of D at a minimum point easily
calculated and now given in the thread where Michael is stepping
through the algorithm.

That means that once you loop through all combinations of factors you
MUST non-trivially factor D.

So it is a direct factoring method--the first in human history as it
only nominally involves search with the looping through of
combinations of factors of D-1.

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.

Direct solutions can be trickier to push through the usual systems.
Here some might bring up as an issue factoring D-1, and then there is
the issue of combinations. For instance if D-1 = 2p where p is a
large prime, then of course that is going to go a lot faster than if
D-1 has a lot of prime factors.

However, my own guess at this time based on how the mathematics
appears is that a factoring algorithm based on the research will be
capable of factoring any number of arbitrary size faster than it can
be used in RSA encryption, ending RSA as a viable option.

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

Nonsensical given the actual mathematics.

The mathematics links factoring D to factoring D-1. It stands to
reason that it is going to be very, very, very fast when fully
implemented, as in a sense, you're factoring D BY factoring D-1.

here James, and none of your work has any relation to the speed at
which your algorithm will factor a large number.

I disagree.

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

Errors are part of the process of learning. One must crawl before one
can walk.

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 is not about reputation. It is about proof.

The mystery here is about denial of proof.

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.

A mathematical proof cannot have a flaw. If a mathematical argument
has a flaw it is not a proof.

And your claim is false. Solving the factoring problem is about
removing the ability of people like you to just deny proof by claiming
a proof is not one.

The bizarre thing though is that it's necessary, and posters like
yourself remain rather bold despite the factoring problem being
solved.

It seems you may overestimate your ability to simply talk down
results, having felt successful with my prior research.

It's as if you think you can lie to the world about something as huge
as a solution to the factoring problem and have it not accepted or
known just by the power of your words.

I find that remarkable.

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.

A false statement which helps show why it was required that I solve
the factoring problem,.

If I say proof, and give a proof and explain it in extreme detail, but
others come back and just claim I did not, then what?

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.

A false statement.

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.

Then you don't believe in it.

I prefer mathematical proof.

It is much easier to check a worked example than to check a proof.

Not in this case as the algebra is rather easy.

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?

I just have the mathematics. I haven't implemented.

So I cannot give such a factorization example. I do, however, have
mathematical proof.


James Harris
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ... I've proven lots of things only to watch posters like yourself simply ... I realized I needed to solve the factoring problem. ... Do you actually KNOW any mathematics? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Underlying math
    ... does not lead to practical algorithms to solve the factoring problem. ... Yeah, we all make mistakes. ... Mathematics is not about shades of gray or human whim. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ... remarkably posters who have argued with me are acting almost as ... to be interested in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... >> your proliferation of redundant threads that you don't pay attention ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... But are you implying that if Rick were the inventor, ... > the factoring problem as there was every reason to believe that I would ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... >> your proliferation of redundant threads that you don't pay attention ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... But are you implying that if Rick were the inventor, ... > the factoring problem as there was every reason to believe that I would ...
    (sci.crypt)