Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled
From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Next in thread: rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:55:07 -0500
[JSH]
> Now one of the oddest things to me is that you can discover a
> mathematical theory, explain it in detail, and have people not believe
> you, as I have the full theory for surrogate factoring worked out, but
> just haven't gotten a program implementing it to fully work, yet.
>
> But I have the full mathematical theory.
>
> The sad reality is that the mathematics is not enough.
>
> You people sit back, act like it's just nothing, and I tell you the
> theory is worked out to a solution to the factoring problem.
You can have all the help you want. It requires two things:
1. Rewrite your paper so it's comprehensible, including a complete
description of your algorithm.
2. Stop pissing on people who try to help you.
Else you're on your own.
> Then, I see requests to prove it that involve factoring large numbers.
That you can say this in the same post you later say:
...
> But this is the world I'm stuck with ... where people often ...
> make claims they do not back up
is pretty bizarre. The entire and only point is to factor large numbers.
You're the one making the claim here, and you're the one not backing it up.
- Next message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Next in thread: rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
