Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests
From: flip (flip_alpha_at_safebunch.com)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: flip: "Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests"
- Previous message: Tim S Roberts: "new factoring method"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests"
- Next in thread: flip: "Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:22:06 -0800
These equations were previously published in the 1930's by Ivan Melch, in a
German book titled "Functions Theory" by Fischkopf Press. Melch has them as
only a side note on page 137 as part of his derivation of the famous
Gebratener Speck theory. Melch uses Z, a complex quantity instead of the
oversimplified real number A. The equations were also shown to be irrelevant
for either surrogate factoring, or random number generation.
Claims by "James Harris" that he "invented them" are unfounded.
Unfortunately, he made several mistakes as he copied the equations out of
the book, such as overlooking the complex to real number, which further
makes them useless.
Can You find the mistake(s)?
Zx= Zz(-Zz +/- sqrt((Zz - 2M^2)^2 - 4TM^2))/(2j^2 - 2Zz)
Zz= Zx(-Zx +/- sqrt((Zx - 2j^2)^2 + 4Tj^2))/(2M^2 - 2Zx)
(Taken from another posters input, you plagiarist).
<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1108730487.817843.128090@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What I did was find a previously unknown factoring method.
>
> If mathematicians were what people supposed then they wouldn't be able
> to sit back, and ignore such a major find, making the unreasonable
> request that unless I can factor RSA numbers, it's of no importance.
>
> That's because supposedly mathematicians are curious about mathematics,
> supposedly at least some of them care about math for math's sake, and
> most importantly, they have a social responsibility to carefully
> consider results in the area of factoring as it's important for
> Internet security.
>
> The technique I found is so simple that it takes just a few paragraphs
> to explain it, while working algorithms may necessarily be more
> complex:
>
> Ax= Az(-Az +/- sqrt((Az - 2M^2)^2 - 4TM^2))/(2j^2 - 2Az)
>
> Az= Ax(-Ax +/- sqrt((Ax - 2j^2)^2 + 4Tj^2))/(2M^2 - 2Ax)
>
> where T = M^2 - j^2
>
> Here you have a two equations defining rationals Ax and Az, where M is
> the number to be factored and j is an integer you pick to try and
> factor it.
>
> I noted that by working backwards--using an M for which you have the
> factorization--you can see that for an integer Az that factors M, the
> rational Ax has a denominator that has the same prime factors as T.
>
> I'm saying there are rules governing how the system of equations works.
>
> Some posters have spent a lot of time claiming my discovery is random.
>
> If they are right, then it will *perfectly* generate random numbers
> with that backwards test, which would also be news, which is why you'll
> see posters avoiding my point in this area!!!
>
> They are not about what's true, but about convincing. So they avoid
> facts that show they are wrong.
>
> You see, there are no known *perfectly* random number generating
> systems outside of quantum mechanical systems.
>
> Yup, quantum mechanical systems are the only ones where what are
> generally accepted to be perfectly random numbers being generated.
>
> Otherwise you have what are called pseudo-random number generators.
>
> If I found a perfectly random number generator, then that would be big
> news.
>
> But it's not actually a random number generator, as the backwards test
> would show for those who do it!
>
> Major math results are this way: you can't escape them with reason, so
> posters simply are unreasonable!
>
> The problem here is that their lack of reason can give safe haven to
> people who *do* figure out how to get sf to work, who then use it to
> create mayhem around the world, as people are convinced it can't work,
> until the evidence is overwhelming.
>
> So why are mathematicians NOT what most people suppose? Why are they
> not these brilliant and wonderful people who act in favor of humanity
> instead of against it?
>
> How can they deliberately avoid important mathematical discoveries
> without regard to the consequences for others or even without regard
> for the inevitability of getting caught?
>
> The simple answer is that your fantasy of what a "mathematician" of
> today is, does not create one. These are human beings with a society
> of their own, and they like their society, and its structure.
>
> Mathematics allows people outside of their social structure--like
> me--to make major discoveries, which disrupts their social world.
>
> It's like if the president of the United States could be unseated by a
> janitor who just happened to make a major discovery!!!
>
> They don't like that possibility, so they remove it by simply ignoring
> results from outside of their society, which is easy for them with
> "pure math" results, but here it's harder and could be fatal for others
> with a factoring result.
>
> They're trying anyway.
>
> Think about my example with the president and a janitor.
>
> Mathematics doesn't pick discoverers, so mathematicians pick what
> discoverers they'll acknowledge to keep away the social disruption of
> people they consider socially beneath them from coming in at the top of
> their society because of a major discovery.
>
> So they lie.
>
>
> James Harris
>
- Next message: flip: "Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests"
- Previous message: Tim S Roberts: "new factoring method"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests"
- Next in thread: flip: "Re: Factoring, sf, and reasonable requests"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
