Re: JSH: Seems correct

On Jan 12, 12:09 pm, Enrico <ungerne...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:42�am, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jan 12, 10:12 am, gjedwards <gjedwa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12 Jan, 18:06, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 12, 12:28 am, Jos� Carlos Santos <jcsan...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 12-01-2008 5:41, JSH wrote:

Lots of mysteries getting resolved and quickly. �My assessment that I
was dealing with cons is gaining greater and greater reinforcement,
and it appears, finally, that yes, there is a conspiracy.

A conspiracy of silence.

You get lots of replies to nearly all of your posts but nevertheless
you claim that your are being a victim of a "conspiracy of silence".
What would you call it then if nobody ever replied to your posts?

Choice.

People can choose to read my posts or not, and reply to them, or not..

What experts in mathematical fields cannot do though is deliberately
ignore important mathematical research.

That is an entirely different subject from whether or not some Usenet
people reply to me or not.

I don't just operate on Usenet. �I inform experts in the field by
email, and I submit papers to mathematical journals.

The conspiracy of silence is about what I now realize was a deliberate
smothering of my research by refusing to follow the rules on how it
should be treated where the brief breakthrough was with the brief
publication (the editors retracted the paper after publication) of one
key paper on the now defunct journal SWJPAM (readers should search
"SWJPAM" for some sobering reality about how easily you can be
shutdown no matter what you discover).

People like Phil Carmody or Arjen Lenstra talk a good game when they
think it helps their careers, but have no moral qualms about squashing
a dramatic new way to factor if they narrow-mindedly think it may harm
them personally. �These are selfish people who think of themselves
first and foremost.

That conspiracy of silence is how you smother basic research in our
modern world.

Yes, lots of people can know about the result, but the official
gatekeepers will simply just not mention it--unless they're forced.

There are posters who taunt me to factor an RSA public key. �I am
increasingly certain that I can work out an algorithm, program it, and
do so, but I could still be wrong.

If I am right though I will post the answer on newsgroups.

And Monday the stock markets around the world will probably crash
wiping out hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from the world.

And I don't think cryptographers will raise a hand to stop it because
they ARE part of the conspiracy of silence and more important to them
than saving other people is hoping that the strategy will still work..

So with more than 36 hours warning they will let economies take the
brunt of it, in the gut, and not do a thing to stop it.

But hey, I could be wrong, right?

James Harris

Yes, you could. Like all the other times. As you approach 50 years of
age perhaps you'll start to realise that the sane world tends to
ignore earth-shattering claims from someone whos been making them for
13 years and been hopeless wrong every time.

I haven't been wrong every time.

And, in fact, my most spectacular failures when I was terribly wrong,
and suffered a good deal of embarrassment and humiliation--deservedly--
were back in the late 1990's.

Coming back from that I learned a lot of crucial lessons and part of
the reason I gave a definition for mathematical proof (which
interested readers can find in Google by doing a search on "definition
of mathematical proof") was to understand what happened to me back
when I was so certain with results that turned out to be so wrong.

It takes a crucial irrationality to look at all the evidence here and
think that I can't have anything to my research despite publication,
retraction of the paper by editors and the journal dying (readers
should search on "SWJPAM").

And now even with this latest result interested readers can see posts
noting it is correct, and I have an existence proof done, and no one
disagrees with it, but posters are either quietly wandering off, or
like you just stating without any mathematical argument whatsoever
that I must be wrong.

Not very scientific, intellectual or mathematical of you, now is it.

The conspiracy of silence built on and relied on my PAST failures,
with people convinced that I was just some crackpot, while the experts
would just not SAY anything to let them know otherwise so I went after
the factoring problem.

The entire point of me having these factoring congruences is to end
the conspiracy of silence.

They are my last chance to get my research acknowledged before these
con artists take over academia and end scientific progress.

Which is why the situation is huge enough to wipe out hundreds of
billions of dollars in days from the wealth of the world.

The real war here is for the future of humanity itself.

Take away a few hundred billion dollars and you get people's
attention.

James Harris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You've overlooked an important detail.

Given T and a prime p > sqrt(T)
With z and y both positive
z mod p has either:

(p+1)/2 solutions
or
(p-1)/2 solutions


That's not true.

Remember z^2 = y^2 + nT, which is the classical difference of squares
and is not new information.

Your claim is that z mod p has so many solutions is trivially false.

only one of which will work to factor T.
(Technically, p-z will also work)

If T is RSA sized, p will be large and
the number of z mod p candidates
will also be large.

Enrico

Your brain may be hijacked by the double-bind which is why you are
making trivial errors.

Please read my post on the subject.

Again, given z^2 = y^2 + nT, it is not true that there are so many
solutions for z mod p.

If you wish, you can check me with z^2 = y^2 + 119 and p=13, or p=37,
or whatever p you want.


James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Seems correct
    ... was dealing with cons is gaining greater and greater reinforcement, ... you claim that your are being a victim of a "conspiracy of silence". ... interested readers can find in Google by doing a search on "definition ... of mathematical proof") was to understand what happened to me back ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Seems correct
    ... you claim that your are being a victim of a "conspiracy of silence". ... interested readers can find in Google by doing a search on "definition ... of mathematical proof") was to understand what happened to me back ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Seems correct
    ... was dealing with cons is gaining greater and greater reinforcement, ... you claim that your are being a victim of a "conspiracy of silence". ... interested readers can find in Google by doing a search on "definition ... of mathematical proof") was to understand what happened to me back ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Seems correct
    ... was dealing with cons is gaining greater and greater reinforcement, ... you claim that your are being a victim of a "conspiracy of silence". ... interested readers can find in Google by doing a search on "definition ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Seems correct
    ... was dealing with cons is gaining greater and greater reinforcement, ... you claim that your are being a victim of a "conspiracy of silence". ... interested readers can find in Google by doing a search on "definition ...
    (sci.crypt)