Re: JSH: Good news!
- From: jiahao_anti-addictgamer@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Mar 2007 07:21:08 -0700
jstevh@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Rather than just talk about my latest surrogate factoring idea and
worry about consequences I've been playing with it, using small
primes, and it works.
x^2 = y^2 mod T
and
k^2 = 2xk mod T
define a simple family of relations that allow you to factor a target
composite T, by instead factoring some other number that I call the
surrogate. The smart ones among you know just by looking that with
all integers, for any integer k there must exist x and y mod T.
That means this remarkably simple idea has to work mod T, so once you
pick a k, all you can do is move things around in multiples of T, as
you look for non-trivial factorizations.
For the more brilliant among you, the surest test of this idea is
asking, how could I find solutions for x and y using k, if I already
knew the factorization of T?
That's one of the things I puzzled over for months as I considered
this idea from a distance, and mostly worked on theory.
Oh yeah, for those of you who wondered, no, there is no way that
mathematicians of the world could NOT have some clue that a lot of
what they were doing was bogus when they are clearly trying their very
best to sit quietly on this information, hoping nothing will happen.
As, hey!!! A person can't invent a new way to factor and it not get
noticed.
Even back in the 1800's this would have been buzzing around the world.
So now there is no doubt--supposedly top mathematicians around the
world MUST have known on some level that what they were doing was
bogus.
Like, imagine if say, Andrew Wiles were serious about desperately
wanting a real answer for Fermat's Last Theorem and really believed
he'd found one, if there were a hint of a clue that he was wrong,
would he hide from it? Or would he chase it down to be sure?
What if instead he and his colleagues just tried to deny, until
brought down by brilliant research in another area, where they still
at first tried to deny?
Could anyone doubt that they were cons all along?
It is EASY to lie about mathematics. It is a magnet for cons.
The real math is done by the people who work in practical areas, doing
things like building better cars, faster computer chips, and better
plastics. The "pure math" people are mostly not doing anything at
all, and at this late stage in the game, they are completely
controlled by con artists who know how to play at being real
mathematicians though they do no important research at all...
And so many of you were so easily conned, by people who now have to
sit still, hoping against hope, that the world ignores brilliant new
knowledge to its own detriment, or they are found out...
James Harris
I look into brilliance , sadly I cannot understand your factoring
method due to no knowledge in this advanced field of mathematics . I
grieve yes but just to tel you one important thing .
Pure mathematicians learn mathe for the knowledge itself , it is a
romantic idea but to say that to a pure mathematician , you are
insulting his passion and indirectly showing no respect for his/her
life .
Note:Do you think you could email me your proof for FLT ?
Thank you ,
John Howard Sim
15 / 3 / 2007
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: Good news!
- From: jstevh
- Re: JSH: Good news!
- References:
- JSH: Good news!
- From: jstevh
- JSH: Good news!
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: Good news!
- Next by Date: Re: Question on modular algebra
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: Good news!
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: Good news!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
