Re: JSH: A theorem can't be wrong
jshsucks_at_yahoo.com
Date: 04/30/05
- Next message: jshsucks_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A theorem can't be wrong"
- Previous message: Paul Rubin: "Re: Another SHA2 implementation"
- Next in thread: Larry Hammick: "Re: JSH: A theorem can't be wrong"
- Reply: Larry Hammick: "Re: JSH: A theorem can't be wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 30 Apr 2005 09:40:23 -0700
jst...@msn.com wrote:
> It seems odd that I need to remind that a theorem cannot be wrong.
>
> So the surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) cannot be wrong.
>
> Now the issue of how well it factors can be raised, but that's
separate
> from it's "pure" validity as a theorem.
>
> That's an important point as the SFT is a theorem unlike any other in
> that it is a general solution to the difference of squares.
>
> No such solution has ever been given in human history.
>
> I like pushing away from the factoring problem to focus on the SFT
> being a theorem because there I can talk about absolutes.
>
> Working out factoring algorithms is a practical matter that can have
a
> lot of reasons for variations in efficacy, including human error, or
> dumb implementation.
>
> Now then, so what? What does it mean for the SFT to be perfectly
> right?
>
> What does it mean for any mathematics to be perfectly right?
>
> Here it's a bit of a social thing I think that I need to focus--on a
> math newsgroup--on the pure math aspect of the SFT.
>
> Before there's the practicality, there is the perfection of a
theorem.
>
>
> James Harris
I knew that James couldn't keep quiet about his precious "SFT".
- Next message: jshsucks_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A theorem can't be wrong"
- Previous message: Paul Rubin: "Re: Another SHA2 implementation"
- Next in thread: Larry Hammick: "Re: JSH: A theorem can't be wrong"
- Reply: Larry Hammick: "Re: JSH: A theorem can't be wrong"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|