Re: JSH: Hyperbolic factoring method

[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
It turns out I DID fix the problem with my latest surrogate factoring
equations:

[Tim Peters]
You said that before on sci.crypt, April 10. Was there a reason people
should have doubted you then?

T = (x+(k_3 -1)y - vz)(x + y + vz)

x^2 + k_3 xy + k_1 y^2 = k_2 z^2

(2(v^2 - k_2)z - (k_3 - 2)vy)^2 = (((k_3 - 2)^2 - 4(k_1 - k_3 + 1))y^2
- 4T)v^2 + 4k_2(k_1 - k_3 + 1)y^2 + 4Tk_2

where my earlier equations were the equivalent of k_3 = 1, which won't
work. Also, k_3=2, won't work, but other values should be fine, like
k_3 = 3.

I really wonder sometimes if you people are suicidal.

I am deliberately posting after my post on the sum of primes being
related to quadratic residues--which relates to Goldbach's
conjecture--as I want it to be absolutely clear if you people continue
to push this that you are doing so with your eyes wide open.

Make no mistake. If math society wants to put itself in the position
of answering to a lot of investors, in a world that is changed forever
because you people sat on your hands and wished I'd go away, then don't
be surprised if people all over the world fall all over themselves
trying to figure out ways to punish you.

I don't want you to go away. In this case, I want you to get off your
*** and discover for yourself whether this pile of equations leads to
a useful method for finding integer factors.

[jstevh@xxxxxxx]
I never posted the equations that don't have errors in them.

So you were deliberately lying whenever you've said you've "solved the
factoring problem"? There are two remarkable things about that. First,
that you'd rather people think you're a liar than that your math was in
error. Second, that you tried the same goofy evasion about a year ago when
your factoring methods at the time were getting shot down as fast as you
could make them up, and have forgotten it didn't work then either.

You didn't know? Silly human. How many times do I have to say that I
don't want to solve the factoring problem?

If that's your true position, then clearly you should say that you don't
want to solve it more often than you say you _have_ solved it. In that
case, you have a lot of catching up to do, and should indeed _never_ have
claimed you solved it.

But I don't believe you on this part either. More likely that you
desperately want to "solve it", and are increasingly frustrated by that your
attempts to date have failed to do so despite that you were sure they would
succeed (the one "advantage" you gain by not trying them yourself is the
false comfort of living in hopeful delusion for however long it takes for
someone else to show that the method du jour doesn't work).

As for whether or not the correct equations work, I no longer care.

My guess is that means you've tried to use them, and were unable to find
non-trivial integer factors. Since it's beyond you either way, but you
don't want to admit that, you "no longer care". Right.

But I'm not correcting the corrections here.

Uh huh.

[and less than an hour later, replying to Tom St. Denis, whose
"You're just too much of a COMPLETE FUCKING *** to give it a rest"
argument proved too mathematically compelling for JSH to resist ;-)]

You managed to change my mind.

Here are the corrected equations:

T = (x+(k_3 -1)y - vz)(x + y + vz)

x^2 + k_3 xy + k_1 y^2 = k_2 z^2

(2(v^2 - k_2)z - (k_3 - 2)vy)^2 = (((k_3 - 2)^2 - 4(k_1 - k_3 + 1))y^2
+ 4T)v^2 + 4k_2(k_1 - k_3 + 1)y^2 - 4Tk_2

k_3=1, won't work, and using k_3=2, breaks a wing, but k_3 = 3, might
work, who knows.


James Harris

So are you lying again, or are you hopeful but unsure? FWIW, changing the
sign of T in the 3rd equation doesn't change my guess about its ultimate
value ;-) Can you factor 119 with it? Two versions back, you managed to
arrive at

(17 + sqrt(-11611))(17 - sqrt(-11611))/100 = 119

Can you arrive at 7*17 using the current version?


.