Re: SF: Some basic facts

From: C. Bond (cbond_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 04/20/05 

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 23:30:26 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> First off, I have the surrogate factoring theorem, also known as the
> SFT, which is a theorem.

You *claim* it is a theorem.

> So, as a theorem, it can't be refuted.

You *claim* it is a theorem. However, your claim *can* be refuted.

> That's a fact, which makes it nice for me because it's an irrefutable
> point from which to handle posters.

Again, your claims *can* be refuted. Besides, your posting history
reveals that any claim you make is very likely to be refuted. "A fool and
his theorem are soon refuted."

> That's a nice thing about mathematics: absolutes.

Your claims are *not* absolutes, they are simply claims.

> Now posters have gone on and on about why they say it can't be made
> practical, but, so what?

An impractical factoring method has no value. You have chosen a specific,
useful problem to solve (not an abstract, theoretical point) and you
should have chosen something else if practicality is not your objective.

> It's still a theorem, still an absolute, still absolutely true.

So you claim. I say it is absolutely false.

> I can rest on the SFT itself, without concern about practicality,

No, you can't. It's one thing to develop a mathematical structure which
is correct but has no obvious immediate value. It is quite another to
attack a real problem which has immediate consequences and, being unable
to produce solutions, claim it doesn't matter. It certainly does matter.

> though I've looked and it has NOT been proven that it doesn't lead to
> some practical factoring method from what I've seen posted.

What do you mean that no one has "proven that it doesn't lead to some
practical factoring method"? It either is a practical method, or it is
not. You have not shown that it "leads" anywhere. If it does not work, or
it is not practical, it is useless.

> Any such proof would be of interest, but the SFT would still be a
> theorem, regardless.

So you claim. I claim it is false, and hence, not a theorem.

> Yes, I can rely on "pure math" here, as the concept is just amazingly
> clever, even if it turns out it doesn't work.

Hahahah.... 

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable --
and the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Sobering invention, surrogate factoring
    ... matter of the theory moving further into practicality. ... away, but I got a little more faith in humanity, less fears about my ... to break through against mathematicians I see as con ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: The neuroscience of Vital Points?
    ... the question of 'practicality' is moot. ... their 'exceptional' ability is often a matter of their ... in multiple situations; known people who learned it with good ... My own interests are about developing my own skills for practical use as I ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Preferred syntax multiple if
    ... Oh wait, so is using Select Case False, just a matter ... practicality, and just imagine a situation where there are twenty or ... Actually I rather like the SelectCase true blocks and have used them for ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Fundamental Unit
    ... What unit is considered "fundamental" is a matter of practicality, ... Because it is easier to perform precise measurements of current than ... of charge. ...
    (sci.physics)