Re: SF Theorem, practical?

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 04/06/05 

Date: 6 Apr 2005 14:56:22 -0700

Gib Bogle wrote:
> Larry Hammick wrote:
> > <jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
> > news:1112659661.889204.282040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>I've come up with a rather basic argument for why the surrogate
> >>factoring theorem probably should lead to a practical algorithm.
> >
> >
> > Should. Doesn't, but should.
> >
> > This thread is typical JSH bull***. He fuddles about with a
quadratic
> > equation, at some point factors something which is easy to factor,
> > and then groundlessly asserts that it's a step toward factoring M.
> > www.crank.net/megalomaniacs.html and click on "James Harris".
>
> He certainly is fixated on quadratic equations. My guess is that his

> mathematical education never really went beyond learning how to solve

> quadratics. When all you have is a hammer ...

Quadratics and factoring go hand in hand.

What I'm noticing is that none of you can match me objectively on the
subject, so you keep playing up the social stuff.

Not a surprise as that's really all *you* have.

Putting down quadratics may seem brilliant social play to you, but
mathematically, it just so happens that quadratics play a role in
factoring.

So, from a mathematical perspective, it's just a declaration of your
own lack of knowledge, and not brilliant at all.

It's the difference between being convincing and being right.

Many of you know a lot about convincing on Usenet, and very little
about being right mathematically.

James Harris