Re: JSH: Weird feeling

JSH wrote:
Sherlock Holmes would say, if you've eliminated every other
possibility, the one that remains, logically, must be the truth.

Indeed, you have not eliminated every other possibility, at least not to my satisfaction.

Mathematical proofs do not lie. People do lie.

I can "prove" that 1 = 2. The key thing to realize is that proofs can be fallacious--they require steps that cannot be substantiated, etc. I may be a little weak on algebra, but I see at least two separate spots in your "proof" where you make claims that you do not fully substantiate.

Besides, so many of your "proofs" have had to be corrected. I recall, back when you claimed to find a polynomial algorithm for TSP, that you gave "proofs" of correctness for your algorithms, algorithms that were later shown to be incorrect. Your "proofs" have not been fully formalized and verified with machine checkers or even by hand, for that matter.

It is often much easier for me to go through an algorithm and find a counterexample than it is for me to disprove a "proof" of correctness, so I've never really invested much time in trying to find those flaws.

What if a terrorist foils authorities because they have an edge,
plants a bomb, and kills you and your family?

My family's too spread out to be killed with a bomb. But, in all seriousness, how does being able to break RSA lead to a direct terrorist threat? Oh wait, this must be part of your attempt to catch the intelligence agency's eyes.

Would that simply be ironic? What if you didn't die, but were simply
severely injured?

As I like to say, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. I never like discussing hypothetical situations. There's always extenuating circumstances that you can't cover.

Occam's Razor: can a simple algebraic proof be wrong, even if no one
can find an error, or is it more likely that dumb people are playing
stupid games for social reasons?

Even if no one can find an error... I think several people would disagree with that statement, as they claim to have found errors in it.

I'm using your advice in the sections of this post that I deleted and
shifting keywords. Intelligence services need to note that I have
SOLVED THE FACTORING PROBLEM!!! The rather simple algebraic proof is
posted and easily checkable.

Right. Post source code, preferably in, say, Python or Java.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Blowfish Sign Extension implementation risk
    ... Usual approach is to specify the algorithm in a computer-understandable ... Some people work on proofs of program correctness: ... with more low-level languages like C, ... one could try to design the algorithm ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Hash functions (was: Maximum String size in Java?)
    ... > "Even though a hash table is a fairly wonderful data structure, ... correctness are, which implies simplicity and consistency of the ... It doesn't take long for an Oalgorithm to become unusable, ... the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: puzzle
    ... >>>such an algorithm is when n is very small so there is no need to perform ... >>>any other optimizing tricks. ... Tricks and algorithms) the Xor solution is unacceptable. ... but we were not talking about correctness but about execution speed. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Proof of Algorithm correctness
    ... >>sort algorithm), but want to see a proof for substantial programs. ... >>prove program correctness in certain cases, ... written in a first order language - then show that the invariant is ... a few first order expressions: one that describes the necessary state ...
    (sci.math.research)
Loading