Re: Factoring paper is wrong

From: James Harris (jstevh_at_msn.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: 15 Jun 2004 04:13:18 -0700

QncyMI@netscape.net (Brian Quincy Hutchings) wrote in message news:<bde404c9.0406141631.54b6f069@posting.google.com>...
> how did he happen to choose that number?...
> do most "arbitrarily chosen numbers" have only two factors,
> as opposed to being prime (or even more composited) ??
>
> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote in message news:<cakd67$2r8a$2@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>...
>
> > (if I understand correctly) claiming that 34699508649151 is a number
> > that he can factor that doesn't have that property.
>
> --ils duces d'Enron!
> http://tarpley.net/bush7.htm

Why act like it's some major freaking conspiracy? I multiply together
primes and then see how the factorization works with them!

There is something really, truly wrong with you people.

I've seen it time and time again over a period of years where some of
you will work very hard to shadow a particular person and use
insinuation, innuendo and anything else you can to always push the
idea that they are just wrong.

There was someone who posted in one of thse threads asking if I ever
had anything right!!!

Yet I have my prime counting function which was smeared but at least
no one can say it doesn't work, but wait! There was a Usenet poster
who went on and on for a while claiming it didn't!!!

There's something wrong with you people on Usenet.

And you don't even care that if your behavior were rational you'd at
least wander away and do something else, as some of you have been
doing this for YEARS.

For years you have been shadowing my posts repeatedly posting in a way
clearly meant to try and distract other people from anything I'm
saying.

So now in testing out a factorization technique actually multiplying
prime numbers together and then seeing if it can factor them is so
strange.

Oh, and I *do* have a math paper that passed peer review, and when
word that it was to be published went out, what happened?

Usenet posters from sci.math harrassed the journal claiming it was
wrong by email, and the chief editor Ioannis Argyros personally yanked
it the NEXT DAY, and told me afterwards claiming that one of the
Usenet posters was a reviewer!!!

That paper is at ANOTHER JOURNAL YOU LOSERS and once again it is UNDER
PEER REVIEW and the journal it's at doesn't have a single weak editor
like Argyros that you rage filled people can bully.

And when that paper comes out then the trial of Usenet can really
begin, and when the regulations come down and the laws and when your
words here are used against you, I'm sure that there will be hollering
all over Usenet.

But you brought it on yourselves.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Factoring paper is wrong
    ... Usenet posters from sci.math harrassed the journal claiming it was ... and the chief editor Ioannis Argyros personally yanked ... PEER REVIEW and the journal it's at doesn't have a single weak editor ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Factoring paper is wrong
    ... Usenet posters from sci.math harrassed the journal claiming it was ... and the chief editor Ioannis Argyros personally yanked ... PEER REVIEW and the journal it's at doesn't have a single weak editor ...
    (sci.physics)