Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
From: Tim Peters (tim.one_at_comcast.net)
Date: 04/16/05
- Next message: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: Successful remote AES key extraction"
- Previous message: Dave Turner: "Re: DNA-Allele Analysis"
- In reply to: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Next in thread: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:15:07 -0400
...
[JSH]
>> The naive view is that since in the set of rationals every number
>> except 0 is a factor of every other number that you can't use it in
>> factoring,
...
[Proginoskes]
> I've devoted a lot of time to this. My final opinion, after doing real
> research, is that it probably cannot be used.
Does this refer to the oblique hints in earlier posts that you may have
found a way to get something useful out of an SF variation, but didn't want
to say how until you had more time to investigate?
If so, it's been on my todo list to harass you about that <wink>, but not
before a week passed. If it's not too much bother (and I'll sure understand
if it is), I'd like to hear what you had in mind, and how that turned out.
Besides just sating my curiousity, the educational value of these threads
for non-participants would (I think) benefit from an example of negative
results obtained & accepted dispassionately.
... [much good advice and explanation snipped] ...
> DEFINITION: An integer m is a factor of n if n/m is an integer.
>
> PROPOSITION: 1 is a factor of every integer N.
>
> Proof: N/1 = N, which is an integer; the definition says then that m is
> a factor of n.
LOL! It's amazing to what levels we eventually sink when trying to have "a
discussion" with James. You can rest assured that the _point_ of the above
went unnoticed anyway <0.9 wink>.
...
> Oh, you added another post in the Surrogate Factoring group:
>> This group is an open one and I welcome posters
> Why did that group start off with 3 members, which has gone down to 2?
> Why do people need to be "approved" before they can post there? And
> guess who's doing the approving -- you. This is about as open as
> Stalin's regime.
The current version of that post goes on to explain what "open" means:
However, there are people who are primarly from the newsgroup
sci.math who work diligently to confuse others about my work,
and a few have come over to make posts, and I've deleted their
posts and banned them.
I will continue to do so, as these people have proven to me that
rational discourse is what they're fighting against.
...
Some posters from the sci.math newsgroup will simply not be given
a chance here as I've had enough time to see what they're about,
so if they come here and post, they will simply be banned and
their posts deleted off as a matter of policy.
> And why are you the ONLY person who's posted there? Can't you find any
> patsies?
According to the above, he isn't the only poster -- he's just the only
poster not all of whose posts he deleted. "All James All The Time" is the
one sure path to Truth, I guess.
...
> Talk, no action.
It's been a mystery forever why these are called "news"groups <wink>.
- Next message: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: Successful remote AES key extraction"
- Previous message: Dave Turner: "Re: DNA-Allele Analysis"
- In reply to: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Next in thread: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Reply: Proginoskes: "Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
