Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: 13 Feb 2005 18:31:12 -0800

Nora Baron wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:

<deleted>

> > Why? The proof itself is all that matters.
> >
>
> In the past, you have asserted, as you do below, that a proof
> begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. Since
> clearly you believed that your "proof" in the thread "I was right,
> surrogate factoring proof" begins with a truth and proceeded by
> logical steps, it had to be correct. You have used this exact
argument
>
> on many other occasions. You have a proof, every step is logical,
> therefore it is correct. Why should the proof itself matter?
> All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth
> and proceeded by logical steps. If that was good enough for your
> "proof" in "Advanced Polynomial Factorization" and for your "proof"
> of FLT, surely it is good enough here. In the case of Advanced
> Polynomial Factorization, it led you to the conclusion that the
> ring of algebraic integers itself had an error. Perhaps the same
> is true here? The field of rational numbers has an error? Doesn't
> include square roots, for example.
>

You sound whiny to me. And why bother about methods under review at
Princeton University?

Don't trust them?

I've moved on and am worrying about factoring.

I actually care about what's true versus talking.

If you hadn't noticed, investigations are going on now both into the
theory and implementing the theory, where I'm hearing it doesn't work.

If it doesn't work then I don't have a proof, or the implementations
are flawed.

Now, if you believe I don't have a proof, fine, but you can chatter
like a nincompoop or actually be constructive and find a flaw.

Or is too much to ask that you think versus talk?

If there is an error in the proof, give it.

If all you care about is social crap, then keep chattering proving what
you are, as I've said what you are many times.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... >>begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... >>All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... > I actually care about what's true versus talking. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... >>begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... >>All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... > I actually care about what's true versus talking. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring, room for error?
    ... > begins with a truth and proceeds by logical steps. ... > All we need is your assertion that you have started with a truth ... I've moved on and am worrying about factoring. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... not" - what I found is just an assertion on the web. ... the play- you are simply saying that you don't care for the truth. ... Like when you scoff, based solely on your own uninformed intuition, at being told usage of "off of" is old; and then you're told that it is, you scoff, based solely on your uninformed intuition that says that the great writers of the centuries must necessarily have agreed with you, at the idea that anyone of literary note would have used it; and then when you're given a list of venerable uses, including some by people of literary note, you scoff at the idea that they really meant it to be taken as good usage. ... As to whether things that used to be said one way are now, whether occasionally or frequently or exclusively, said another way: yeah, languages changes, it always has changed, it isn't always logical, even the most standard features of a language are often based on earlier illogical leaps, that's life, deal with it, move on. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: New A C Grayling book
    ... So you are saying that 'through our reason, we can see that there is ... humans or other life forms around to identify it and use it. ... Some of these have nodes where we recognise the 'truth' of the logical deduction. ... be made with any degree of confidence, just like any other assertion. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading