Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?
From: Volker Hetzer (volker.hetzer_at_ieee.org)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?"
- Next in thread: phr_at_localhost.localdomain: "Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:28:43 +0100
<jstevh@msn.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:1107059700.859771.16210@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Unruh wrote:
> > jstevh@msn.com writes:
> >
> > ...
> > >I talk out math ideas on Usenet, and people give me grief for it.
> >
> > In general they are bad ideas.
>
> Even if they were, so what?
>
> It's Usenet.
>
> I think some of you don't understand the concepts behind Usenet, like
> free speech and talking out problems if you wish.
Believe me, we do understand them. But just like in Hyde parks speakers
corner, we reserve the right to respond in any way we want. If you feel
you've been abused, contact my ISP.
> > >My claims are ones that I PROVE mathematically.
> > No, they are not. You have claimed that factoring in polynomial time
> is a solved
> > problem. You have not proven it.
> Theory versus implementation.
> I have theoretically solved the problem.
You haven't published a proof that stands up to public scrutiny
and you haven't done a non-constructive proof by implementing
a prototype.
And before you go on about your proofs, something counts as proven
when the proof is accepted, not when you feel you've proven something.
Look up the history of the proof of fermats last theorem to see how the
real world works.
> It's the implementation that's behind, but moving at light speed.
Do you imply it can't be long before you have a functioning
implementation? If yes, how long?
>
> It's like if congruence of squares were discovered one month, and the
> theory developed to the Number Field Sieve the next.
> And an implementation coming soon thereafter.
> Speed at this level is simply unheard of.
That depends. If someone had discovered the congruence of squares,
saw a pressing need for the number sieve for a cryptographic implementation
and had a rough idea how this all hangs together (as you claim it for your
discovery as far as I understand it) it *would* have happened faster.
> You people simply don't know enough to realize what you're witnessing.
> You're too dumb about the real world of mathematical research and
> development to understand that progress like this typically occurs over
> decades, not days.
Programming a bunch of equations is definitely not hard. You seem to
not know enough about the world of scientific computing to understand
that getting an implementation of a mathematical construct isn't that hard
anymore. (In fact hasn't been since the invention of FORTRAN and has
become MUCH easier with the advent of Maple, MatLab etc..)
> I'm moving from theory to implementation at an incredible
> rate...sigh...why bother explaining?
Very good question. And your answer is?
>You won't believe me.
We will believe you as soon as you're finished.
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
- Next message: Paul Rubin: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: infobahn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?"
- Next in thread: phr_at_localhost.localdomain: "Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
