Re: Math society, weird behavior
From: Sebastian Gottschalk (seppi_at_seppig.de)
Date: 01/27/05
- Next message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Math society, weird behavior"
- Next in thread: ošin: "Re: Math society, weird behavior"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:58:23 +0100
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Yes I do get quite happy about my discoveries and that mixed with my
> growing disdain for math society means that I probably sound really
> awful to people who don't quite understand how professional
> mathematicians and their society works.
AFAICS you've just make one discovery, which was one of many prime-counting
functions.
> They enforce that position by ignoring work done by amateur
> mathematicians, no matter how noteworthy it is.
See above.
> So now I've discovered a brand new way to factor that I call surrogate
> factoring.
> It is like nothing else discovered by Man in this area before me.
Wrong. You essentially rewrote quadratic sieve in a overly complicated way.
Right before you had rewritten Polard's Rho in a overly complicated way.
There's nothing new about it except that it doesn't show why it works.
> Sound arrogant? Think it can't be true?
Yes. No.
> It's provably true, and it's not even hard to prove it, as you can just
> go read up on factoring techniques, and see that what I have is not
> described.
I entered RSA-120 and guess what it found... only the trivial factors.
> To hear posters chatter on you'd think that someone discovers a brand
> new way to factor every day, like when I talked about my prime counting
> discovery, and they talked it down.
No, your prime counting discovery was noted, compared to the other method
and stated to be correct but less efficient.
> No matter what I find, they just talk it down, and how they do so
> varies dependent on how easy it is to see I'm right.
Maybe because you're a crank.
> With prime counting they can't lie about it working, so they'd claim it
> wasn't new.
It wasn't new.
> With my new factoring discovery, they can't lie about it
> working--though it doesn't work all the time, yet--so they attack it in
> terms of speed or the size of the numbers it's doing NOW as if they're
> too stupid to comprehend that early on a discovery of a new factoring
> method, might be slow and work on only small numbers, as the details
> are worked out, but later blow everything else away.
You method isn't new. Got that?
> That social order depends on ignoring the results of amateur
> mathematicians.
No, the social order depends on freedom of speech and freedom to ignore
cranks.
> So here now I've shown a new way to factor, written a paper, and worked
> out a lot of theory as well as done a proof of concept prototype.
See above for how good your prototype is.
> James Harris
Oh what, you're even too stupid to put your name into the From-Field.
-- Dieser Schrieb stellt eine private Meinungsäußerung des Verfassers im Sinne der gesetzlich garantierten Meinungsfreiheit dar. Wem das nicht passt, der wende sich an das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Viel Erfolg! Key: 0xA0E28D18 FP: 83AE 1136 1E2B 9767 8FB2 7594 4128 1A9E A0E2 8D18
- Next message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Math society, weird behavior"
- Next in thread: ošin: "Re: Math society, weird behavior"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
