Re: Now you can see, my "crank" status

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 04/18/05 

Date: 18 Apr 2005 14:34:07 -0700

Tim Peters wrote:
> [JSH]
> > Now you can see from the surrogate factoring theorem, where I
present
> > some rather basic mathematics, and what it means, and posters start
> > going to work to try and confuse the issue, ignoring repeated
> > explanations.
>
> They're not ignored, and your probability argument (which is, as
you've
> said, "key" here) is wrong. You ignore even more explanations of why
it's
> wrong, BTW.

Which is an example of simply stating something that is not true, as if
it were true.

Maybe this will help some people at least.

Do you understand mappings?

Ok, I'll assume you do. Then consider the SFT as a theorem that maps
every rational factor of j^2 T, to each rational factor of M^2 T.

It doesn't matter that you figure factorizations are trivial in
rationals, as there's a mapping.

The same argument can apply to any mapping if you say that a mapping is
meaningless here.

Now, necessarily factors that can be called non-trivial in that their
numerators or denominators will give a prime factor of j or M are
mapped on both sides.

I say that there is no preference in the mapping as in fact there can't
be, as every rational factor of M^2 T gets mapped to every rational
factor of j^2 T.

That's not complicated.

For people who've learned a lot of advanced mathematics, it's not even
hard.

However, posters will make it their business to lie about the details,
act like what I say doesn't make sense, and above all else, at the end,
come back to claim that they have proven I'm wrong and that I'm
ignoring their arguments.

> You can settle this: program it and _observe_ the factorization
success
> rate. You'll see that the success rate is in fact as tiny as
everyone has
> told you it will be -- or you can beat your critics over the head
with a
> demonstration that they were wrong. I don't fear testing it. Why do
you?
>

It's not necessary. I believe in mathematical proof.

I can step through the logical argument, and show it is without flaw.

Posters in replying to me just lie about the details or sidestep them
and then at times push for practicality.

But you're not the entire world.

You're simply fighting to marginalize yourself and your own countries.

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)
  • 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: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... >> clearly that from the theorem only, but math people are pushing me ... > rationals will produce non-trivial factorisations of M, ... the mathematics does not distinguish between trivial and non-trivial ... The surrogate factoring theorem does in fact connect two infinite sets. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... >> Now, if the surrogate factoring theorem, like human beings, ... >> There is a reason for everything in mathematics. ... non-trivial one in the set of rationals. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... the corresponding distinction between rationals and reals is ... between potentially infinite and perfectly infinite. ... mathematics, I fail to se the correspondence. ... Naturals and positive reals start at the unity 1. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast