Re: JSH: Hyperbolic factoring method

Tim Peters wrote:
[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.


That makes no sense.

So you think I put up factoring equations that I know can't work, with
a method that can't be made to work, and think that leaving errors in
them leaves me room to come back later and claim that there was an
error as if that would matter?

What would be the point?

I explain it more simply, I don't want to solve the factoring problem,
but feel pressure to do so because it is a solution that mathematicians
couldn't get away with lying about, while they DO get away with lying
about my other research, or just ignoring it.

I think it's a horrible thing, as if I do solve it, my own analysis
indicates that quite a few people could lose their life savings--people
who don't give a damn about mathematicians who don't care about
mathematics, who just trust their world and society.

So I'd just as soon fail, but on the other hand, I feel like the
mathematical research I have is very important, and should be known for
how important it is, so I should force the issue for the benefit of
mankind.

And I go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth with those
arguments.

In between I hack at the problem.

And my work is even more error prone than usual as I don't want to
succeed, but then again I do, but then again, I don't.

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.


Trouble is, despite what you people are saying here, it's quite
possible that I did.

The equations as given are not exactly trivial to use correctly.

And you have not impressed me with your intelligence, so even if you
tried something--hacking at getting them to work--it might have been
like a chimpanzee trying to work a computer.

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).


That convoluted bit of nonsesne makes no sense.

My explanations on the subject, do.

By the rules, I don't need to solve the factoring problem.

I have lots of research that's quite important.

Mathematicians are just not following their own rules.

Like how my formally peer reviewed paper got yanked from an electronic
math journal by editors who a few months later decided to quit and the
journal died, after over nine years of operations.

The paper that got yanked happens to show--with a bit more work--that
ideal theory does not work.

In thinking back on them calling it quits, maybe the reality is that
they realized that the paper WAS correct, and saw no point in
continuing to publish papers relying on the flawed ideas, while they
were too weak to sound the trumpet about the failure of ideal theory,
or even to stop teaching in the area at their own schools.

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.


I refuse to try to use them for the moment.

And increasingly, I think that if humanity is too dumb to figure them
out, I shouldn't do it.

If they don't work, then I should finally give in to the do not want to
do it side, and stop working on factoring problems, though that's
easier to say than do.

But I'm not correcting the corrections here.

Uh huh.


I changed my mind a little later.

[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


It's mathematics. The sign is not a political thing.

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

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

Sounds like you don't have a clue how to play with them, which is fine
with me.

Hey, maybe they don't even work.

I don't care.

But maybe you haven't a clue how to get them to work, and think I'll
tell you, despite everything I said about being ambivalent on the
subject.

I say, if no human being but me can get them to work--if they do
work--then they will not be seen to work, at least for now.

Just giving myself room, to change my mind.


James Harris

.