Re: A hyperbolic solution


<jstevh@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142667558.186558.269530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's worth mentioning to me that what I found is technically a
four-dimensonal general factorization of a composite that traces a
hyperbolic slice from a hyperbloid:

The factorization

T = (x+y+vz)(vz-x)

in four dimensions: x, y, z, v

where x, y and z are defined by

x^2 + xy + k_1 y^2 = k_2 z^2

so you have the hyperbloid, and next

(2(v^2 - k_2)z + vy)^2 = ((1-4k_1)y^2+4T)v^2 + 4k_2(k_1y^2 - T)

where and first step to using the equations to factor is to pick y, k_1
and k_2, and actually picking y gives you the slice.

That may sound like nothing you've ever heard of for factoring
composites

Some may even think that's the point for why it should be ignored, as
if something so bizarre as factoring using four dimensions must be a
crackpot bit of work.

Or you may naively think that the equations don't work, or that someone
has proven that they cannot be used to practically factor.

I haven't seen any proof that a research effort couldn't turn the
initial research into a powerful factoring method, as instead I've seen
some Usenet posters deriding me.

They like to make things personal on Usenet in the math and sciences
newsgroups.

Some people make it their business to reply to my posts on almost any
subject across Usenet, deriding my research and me.

Now then, if those equations--like nothing before seen--can be the
start of a research effort that leads to a practical factoring, why
should anyone assume that mainstream cryptologists or mathematicians
would be the ones to do it?

I increasingly fear it more likely, as that culture is proud, that
desperate people who don't care about the source, but are interested in
ANY way to crack security systems would be the more likely ones to just
try anything.

So--mainstream mathematicians care about the source and you know and I
know they are capable of ignoring anything--versus--desperate people
who may be willing to try anything, with a general composite
factorization using a hyperbloid and four dimensions.

With all that said, it's also has not been proven that the equations
can be made into a practical method, so they may just been some
eosteric pure math oddity, but you can be sure that mathematicians will
do their best to ignore them even in that area as that's what these
people freaking do.

So how did I even get those equations?

I discovered my own technique for mathematical analysis where I
subtract what I call conditionals, in this case the equation for the
hyperbloid

x^2 + xy + k_1 y^2 = k_2 z^2

from what is commonly called an identity, which I found by manipulating

x+y+vz = x+y+vz

which is one of those clever ideas that you wonder was only discovered
last century, by me.

I discovered the method back in the month of December 1999 and promptly
posted about it on sci.math to much derision, as usual.

The full derivation demonstrating the technique is at my blog:

http://mymath.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_mymath_archive.html

You can see that it is in my August 2005 archive and yes the equations
have been around for that long, long enough that if they can be made
practical there may be some person or persons out there as we speak who
are cracking RSA easily, and not telling anyone.

If they can be made practical, and again, I don't know if they can, but
even if they cannot be, if mathematicians were so "pure" as they claim,
a solution of this type would be of some interest.

For those of you who do not understand how the real math world works,
consider this is just one of my results, and I did get some research of
mine published in a peer reviewed math journal, a somewhat small
electronic one that had only been around for about a decade.

Well someone posted about it on sci.math and the newsgroup erupted in
fury.

A group of them emailed the editors of the journal claiming my paper
was wrong, and the chief editor yanked it THAT NIGHT in a clear
knee-jerk reaction, giving in to the mob editorial decision, which he
didn't know about--he clearly just thought he was getting emails from
concerned mathematicians--not realizing he was dealing with sci.math
people.

How do I know?

Because he emailed me claiming that publication was a mistake, and
claimed to have a reviewers report showing the mistake, which was a
faulty claim of error made by the Usenet poster W. Dale Hall, which I
knew because he'd posted it the day before, when the sci.math people
were planning the email assault--in posts!

That's the REAL math world.

That's real math society.

Not pretty, not a movie--a janitor with emotional problems (or without
them) could not crack this world--not so brilliant or beautiful--but
how things actually work in the real world of mathematics.

It is an academic world, with Ivory Tower people who can do things that
most people would find incomprehensible, not because it's so brilliant,
but because it's so damn stupid.

I eventually sent a revised paper--cleaning up some details and putting
it upfront how big the paper was as I didn't do that before--to the
Annals of Mathematics "published bimonthly with the cooperation of
Princeton University and the Institute for Advanced Study."

See http://www.math.princeton.edu/~annals/

I was told that the paper was accepted for review, and months passed...

After six months I checked in and was told that a rejection had been
sent a month after they got the paper, but I never got any email.

I asked for a reason for the rejection, and was told none was
available, as my contact at Princeton University told me that someone
else had just noted the database and there was no additional
information.

They were stuck. Perfect paper with a dramatic conclusion which I now
know leads to the conclusion that ideal theory is wrong, among other
huge revolutionary things.

But how amateur!

Just claim an email was sent, when I have MSN and an email from
Princeton through MSN is not going to just disappear without a trace
all that freaking often, and then I have to contact someone nice enough
on the inside to at least get the info out that someone had put that in
their database, but, no more info available.

If these stories sound impossible to you, you do not know the real math
world.

It is quite possible that I have put up one of the most important
research finds in the history of factoring, and it is just being
ignored by people you do not understand.


James Harris


*YAWN* This has more social crap than math. I agree that the journal you
submit to should give you a reason for not accepting your paper, but there's
not a lot you or anyone can do. If you had some sense, you'd go back and get
a degree in math so you can actually learn something about it. In the time
you've spent posting crap on Usenet, I've started and finished high school
and started and finished a degree in math. You'll probably be at it when I
finish my degree in meteorology, as well.

Dave

Dave


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Your funeral
    ... at a factoring algorithm (or a short proof of FLT, ... article is mostly made of examples) is of mathematicians ... Just math. ... by finding some convincing math and telling us all about it ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Math society against amateurs
    ... My latest research is on factoring integers. ... Now what do you think the reaction of math society will be? ... Most mathematicians haven't even heard of me. ... You believe in them, so if professional mathematicians ignore a result, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math society, weird behavior
    ... You say you have *solved* the factoring problem ... > Yes I do get quite happy about my discoveries and that mixed with my ... > growing disdain for math society means that I probably sound really ... > Professional mathematicians push the idea that no amateur ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • SF: A hyperbolic solution
    ... so you have the hyperbloid, ... That may sound like nothing you've ever heard of for factoring ... So--mainstream mathematicians care about the source and you know and I ... That's the REAL math world. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud
    ... In its current version surrogate factoring is too slow to be ... TWICE AS SLOW AS RANDOM GUESSING. ... If practicality is all that matters then acknowledge that "pure math" ... But mathematicians have said it's not important, ...
    (sci.math)