Re: JSH: Nearly done
litsohate_at_hotmail.com
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis"
- Next in thread: litsohate_at_hotmail.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Maybe reply: litsohate_at_hotmail.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 24 Jan 2005 15:53:10 -0800
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> There has been a lot of verbiage flying back and forth related to my
> theory and method for factoring that I call surrogate factoring.
>
> The mathematics though is surprisingly simple, while checking it
> thoroughly can test you to your limits. It's some of the best kind
of
> mathematics to consider as elementary methods are shown to show
> surprising results never conceived of before.
>
> At the heart of the theory are two simple quadratics:
>
> yx^2 + Ax - j^2 = T
>
> and
>
> yz^2 + Az - j^2 = 0,
>
> where all are to be rational, while A, j and T are also integers.
>
> The primary question is, do rational non-zero x, y, z exist?
>
> So what does that have to do with factoring?
>
> Well j and T are chosen such that M^2 = j^2 + T, where M is the
number
> you're trying to factor, and that means that from the first equation
> you have
>
> x(yx + A) = M^2
>
> so x is a factor of M, but it can be a fraction, so you concentrate
on
> its numerator to see if that gives a prime factor of M.
>
> So why M^2 and not M? Well that's where the theory starts pushing
you,
> as I tried M, and found out that mathematically it didn't give me
> something I could work with easily, but M^2 did.
>
> If you let b_1 b_2 = -j^2, and f_1 f_2 = T, it is easy to prove that
>
> x = (b_1 f_2 + b_2 f_1 - 2j^2)/A
>
> meaning that x is defined by the factors of j^2 and T, though it is a
> factor of M^2, which is why this is surrogate factoring. The
> surrogates are factored to try and factor M.
>
> It's a brilliant idea. No matter what any poster says in reply, what
> I've already shown is simply brilliant, as I have x, a factor of M,
> defined by factors of numbers other than M, and that is the start.
>
> The first problem you face is that b_1, b_2, f_1 and f_2 may not be
> integers, but are in the field of rationals.
>
> My paper goes over methods that put f_1 and f_2 into integers, while
> allowing the mathematics to *choose* b_1 and b_2 so that they are
still
> in the field of rationals, but you get the mathematics selecting them
> out of infinity.
>
> Yup, that's why I call it a super sieve, as in picking b_1 and b_2
for
> you, the algebra checks against all rationals, the entire set, and
> that's an infinite set!
>
> Now we are beyond brilliant into the arena of almost impossible to
> imagine, with a technique for factoring, which loops through the
entire
> field of rationals in searching for a solution.
>
> So must x reveal a non-trivial factor of M?
>
> The answer, amazingly enough, depends on quadratic residues!!!
>
> The mathematics requires only elementary methods, but in the space of
a
> few paragraphs I've talked about looking for a prime factor of some
> target M, where the answer depends on the factorization of numbers
> other than M, and you pick one of those numbers, while letting the
> algebra factor the other, going through the entire field of rationals
> to pick a solution!
>
> All of that is easy to prove, and not only did I prove it in a paper,
I
> wrote a program that does it.
>
> See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sufactor/
>
> I'm a person not just making claims--I have the full demonstration of
> everything I say here, and I've worked it out, and put it out for
> people to consider.
>
> So, how can that be possible? How can what I say here be true, and
the
> mathematical establishment not pay attention?
>
> There's something wrong with them. I have other big results and
> they've tried to ignore those, and I've talked about some of them
here
> where people have usually lied about my work.
>
> It's weird. But it's the reality.
>
> With "pure math" people can lie. That's just a fact. If some group
of
> mathematicians write gibberish, and declare it to be a proof of
> something, then basically that goes over, if they are considered to
be
> mathematicians of note.
>
> Sure, mathematicians say that's not the way it is, but that's the way
> it is.
>
> And if an amateur mathematician makes major discoveries, it goes the
> other way.
>
> Mainstram mathematicians just band together and ignore their work,
like
> they will try to do with my latest discovery, which they also try to
> do because they're very stupid.
>
> The factoring problem is quite important in the real world.
>
> It's not "pure math", so some of those people you respect and admire
> may soon be in jail, hated worldwide, and villified by people who
will
> not be able to comprehend their behavior.
>
> I find it hard to understand myself.
>
> You do not believe that will happen.
>
> It does not matter.
>
> It will happen.
>
> There are probably only a few days before many of your heroes are
cast
> down, humiliated, ripped from their positions, and put up on public
> display as enemies of humanity itself, as people too blind to act in
> the best interests of society, and too dumb to realize they wouldn't
> get away with it.
>
> You do not believe but it will happen, and the foundations of your
> society will not just be shaken--they will be shattered--as I
promised
> years ago.
>
> The end was never in doubt. You cannot betry the truth, and you
cannot
> block mathematics.
>
> You betrayed mathematics itself, so you will be destroyed by it.
>
> It is the just solution, the most logical, the most rational one, and
> one of absolute perfection.
>
> Those who betrayed the field of mathematics, who sullied that field
> with their lies, and their belief that social rules could win that
they
> could make up "truth" and get away with it are about to learn just
how
> powerful of a field it truly is as a lesson that humanity will never
> forget.
>
> No one will be able to forget.
>
> You will learn this time.
>
> You will learn, never to make these mistakes again, and the lesson
will
> be complete.
>
>
> James Harris
Are you still wondering why people call you a crank?
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis"
- Next in thread: litsohate_at_hotmail.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Maybe reply: litsohate_at_hotmail.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
