Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 04/15/05 

Date: 15 Apr 2005 10:07:26 -0700

Bruce Stephens wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com writes:
>
> > Bruce Stephens wrote:
> >> jstevh@msn.com writes:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > Well, the surrogate factoring theorem links rational
> >> > factorizations, but in so doing, it shows no inclination for
> >> > trivial versus non-trivial factorizations.
> >>
> >> Why not try it, then?
> >
> > I have several points to make:
> >
> > 1. Mathematicians and math people don't truly value "pure math"
but
> > just say so when it suits them. I have a major result which is
> > clearly that from the theorem only, but math people are pushing me
> > to show practicality--a clear case of hypocrisy.
>
> I think the problem is that it's not at all clear that your result is
> of any significance whatever. If you'd succeeded in producing
integer
> factors of M from factors of a surrogate, then that's potentially
> significant. But producing rational divisors just isn't interesting
> (so linking them with rational divisors of other numbers just isn't
> interesting, given that a rational divisor of one integer is also a
> divisor of all other integers).
>

It's quite clear why the surrogate factoring theorem is of interest--to
real mathematicians--and part of my point now is that the math
community today is not really up to speed on what's important, or it
will lie and claim that a theorem that's clearly important, is not.

It takes time to make that point.

> More concretely, it seems that you believe that about half of
> rationals will produce non-trivial factorisations of M, but that
> nobody else believes that.

It's not about belief but about what's true.

If you consider a non-zero integer N, and factors f_1 and f_2 that are
rationals such that

f_1 f_2 = N

on what basis can you say anything about trivial versus non-trivial
factors in terms of frequency?

Now I say posters deliberately attempt to mislead on the subject by
acting as if I'm saying something strange when I'm actually saying that
the mathematics does not distinguish between trivial and non-trivial
factors, people do.

Mathematically, a factor is a factor.

Now then, given the truth of that, it is clear that people trying to
push the notion that a trivial factor is more common than a non-trivial
factor--in rationals--are just lying or they're very confused on some
basic mathematics.

> So doesn't that seem odd? If you're right, then why hasn't anyone
> noticed before? And given that nobody seems to believe you, isn't
> there at least a temptation to try a few rationals and see if you or
> they seem to be right?
>
> [...]

I'm a mathematician. I believe mathematical proof.

The current math community claims to be something it's not, and it's in
my interest to make sure that point is well-established so there's no
room for denial on it.

Given a mathematical proof, I accept the proof, but "mathematicians"
question, if they have a social reason to question, as if social issues
will change anything, proving they are not true mathematicians.

There is in fact no leaning towards trivial factorizations in the set
of rationals.

The surrogate factoring theorem does in fact connect two infinite sets.

It is at this point "pure math" at its greatest, where the issue of
practicality comes later.

And later will be the end of the current math community's domination.

Prepare for it.

As later, you'll have to face the world, as I'm sure there will be
plenty of questions.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... One of the problems with surrogate factoring in terms of understanding ... it, is that it utilizes infinite sets, notably the set of rationals. ... Well, the surrogate factoring theorem links rational factorizations, ... The mathematics then gives you factors in exchange. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Now you can see, my "crank" status
    ... >> Now you can see from the surrogate factoring theorem, ... rationals, as there's a mapping. ... The same argument can apply to any mapping if you say that a mapping is ... For people who've learned a lot of advanced mathematics, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... One of the problems with surrogate factoring in terms of understanding ... it, is that it utilizes infinite sets, notably the set of rationals. ... Well, the surrogate factoring theorem links rational factorizations, ... The mathematics then gives you factors in exchange. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • JSH: The lying charge
    ... I now routinely talk about "math people" lying, ... revolutionary mathematics. ... Some of you may say that all factors in the set of rationals are ... And they don't believe in mathematical proof. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Tag along society
    ... > the set of rationals for any particular composite. ... > Like that story I keep mentioning of the math grad student ... especially if the mathematics was correct. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading