JSH: Assessing group opinion, survey

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » JSH: Assessing group opinion, survey

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

hagman

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:02 am

Guest

On 6 Mrz., 05:22, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for the replies so far. I will not reply to them all.

But I have a reply here. Comments below...

On Mar 5, 7:09 pm, "CarterBanks" <spaml...@nospam.com> wrote:

"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
3. Can important ideas in factoring be presented loudly without
anyone around the world noticing or caring, like governments or
security agencies if those factoring ideas could lead to major
breaches in security?

yes, check out early days of PHP. Also there are several free complex multi
level encription/decrytion SW on the internet that no Goveernment can break
anyway. The Gov just want their stuff to stay secure, most of that are very
very large Psudo Random number streams, and have nothing to do with
factoring.

I'm afraid that is the case, which is why I am somewhat paused as I
consider what to do next.

Wait a minute.
You "investigated" factoring and whined about conspiracies against you
built
up with the purpose of keeping your results under the blanket because
otherwise global security might be at risk.
After a lot of discussion you abandon your idea and think about
what to do nect.
And then, after hearing that a super duper factoring algorithm might
be
a very nice thing to have, but won't attack global security after
all,
you consider changing your subject of research.
THUS: Either you are trying by all means to destroy the world.
OR: You deliberately decide to wor in sunjects you consider of
security-shaking importance in order to be able to come up with
a conspiracy excuse in the likely event of a failure of your research.
To sum up: You are either nuts or nuts, possibly both.

hagman

rossum

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:12 am

Guest

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:39:46 -0800 (PST), jankrihau@hotmail.com wrote:

Quote:

No. In 12 years on usenet you have not given any evidence that you are
able to produce anything new and correct in the field of mathematics.
Strictly, James has produced both new and correct work here.

Unfortunately, to paraphrase whoever it was first said it, the new
parts are not correct and the correct parts are not new.

I will grant that James was not aware that the correct parts, such as
his prime counting algorithm, were not new but that is a result of his
failure to study what has already been done in mathematics. Newton
was right to quote "standing on the shoulders of giants". James is
attempting to build his own giant while ignoring the prefectly usable
one standing next to him.

rossum

Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:18 am

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Probably because they don't realize how dumb you are.

marcus_b

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:51 pm

Guest

On Mar 5, 10:22 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for the replies so far. I will not reply to them all.

But I have a reply here. Comments below...

On Mar 5, 7:09 pm, "CarterBanks" <spaml...@nospam.com> wrote:

"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

yes, extending to larger numbers may be difficult

Ok.

Mr Banks is being exceedingly generous.

Quote:

It's not happening. You have an enormous free forum.
Nothing is being "blocked" (but please try to expand your
vocabulary a little). Papers you have submitted to
journals are clearly without merit and have been
evaluated appropriately and fairly. No, it is not a
matter of "style" or scholarly references; it is a matter
of content. You don't know what constitutes a valid
proof. Worse, your papers (e.g. APF) assert incorrect
statements; your incorrect proofs are irrelevant.

Quote:

The journal had the paper for nine months and I was in continual
communication by email and told them that I was an amateur researcher.

As a rhetorical question, why would the editors publish a paper from
an admitted amateur that had errors?

My guess: Sheer, outright clerical error: the paper
was mistakenly put in the to-be-published file rather
than the reject file. Easy to have happen with an
electronic journal, almost impossible to happen with
a print journal.

Quote:

One of my favorite later emails AFTER publication from one of the
editors in reply to me thinking them for publication noted that
mathematics was important regardless of the source, even if it came
from a janitor.

True.

Quote:

I'm not a janitor.

You should consider it though.

Quote:

The cultural reference seemed obvious to me.

What are you saying? What did the editors know about
you that would cause them to make a 'cultural reference'?

Quote:

So then, if the editors were that all the way in, how does it make
sense to so many of you that the paper was actually flawed?

Your premise is wrong. This was simply a filing
error. We already know the editing of this journal
was sloppy at best.

With regard to your paper being "flawed": more like,
totally rotten to the core. There was one glaring,
obvious, stupid error toward the end that you yourself
overlooked for over a year. It was fixable, but it
was NOT fixed in the version that was "published"
for a few hours. Then there was the central error,
based on the idea that if the constant term
g(0) is divisible by a prime p, then g(x) is divisible
by p for all x. Another glaringly obvious stupid
error, but slightly more obscured by your unclear
statement of it. And your main 'result' contradicts
very well established important theorems.

You think that that erroneous publication somehow
validates your "proof" because it was "peer- reviewed".
If that were true, what about 150 years of papers in
Galois theory and algebraic number theory, also peer
reviewed, and many of them published in the best
journals. How many of those were withdrawn? And what,
incidentally, did the peer review of your paper actually
say?

Quote:

Isn't a cover-up more likely?

There WAS a cover-up. The editor royally screwed up.
Then he tried to hide it by (1) yanking your paper
without your consent or any explanation to you, and (2)
not publishing any kind of explanation in the journal.
He treated both you and his readers with contempt. The root
problem was that the paper was completely wrong and he
saw that immediately when it was pointed out and did not
want it to have it on the books. He covered his own
tracks to save himself embarrassment.

Quote:

Especially considering that later the
journal DIED? And Cameron University removed all mention of it from
their websites so that EMIS had to save 9 years of math papers out of
the goodness of its heart?

It is likely that the editor's incompetence was a
factor in the death of the journal. It was a mediocre
journal to start with and an unusually large proportion
of the papers published in it were written by ... the
editor! Your paper however was too obviously bad even
for that journal. Your paper may have contributed a little
to the journal's demise in that it was strong explicit
evidence of incompetent editing.

Quote:

Do you really think that one paper had the power to destroy and entire
math journal and 9 years of other papers, because it was wrong?

No. At best it was a small factor.

Quote:

3. Can important ideas in factoring be presented loudly without
anyone around the world noticing or caring, like governments or
security agencies if those factoring ideas could lead to major
breaches in security?

yes, check out early days of PHP. Also there are several free complex multi
level encription/decrytion SW on the internet that no Goveernment can break
anyway. The Gov just want their stuff to stay secure, most of that are very
very large Psudo Random number streams, and have nothing to do with
factoring.

No, I doubt this is right. The government is not good
at all at managing conspiracies. There are too many
witnesses. The government could never pay them all to
shut up, and anyway, a good many of them are honest.
And anyway, there is no suppression of Harris's "work".
He gets all the air time he wants all the time. The
government makes no effort to suppress it. Why should
they? There is nothing worthwhile to suppress.

Quote:

I'm afraid that is the case, which is why I am somewhat paused as I
consider what to do next.

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

yes, but how much does it improve anything in quantitave terms?

Harris's "constraint" boils down to the fact that
if T = r * s, where r and s are odd numbers and T is
congruent to 2 mod 3, then if z - y = r and z + y = s,
then z is divisible by 3. Trivial to prove and not
a big deal and of minimal help in factoring.

Quote:

It shows an equation that defines z when T mod 3 = 2, and

z^2 = y^2 + T.

Then z = (1 + 2á^2)k/(2á), where

k^2 = (1 + á^2)^{-1}(nT) mod p

and p is an odd prime of your choice chosen such that k exists, and
since there are (p-1)/2 prime residues, it should exist about 50% of
the time.

Then you also get factors mod p:

f_1 = ák mod p

and

f_2 = á^{-1}(1 + á^2)k mod p.

But you'd still need to find k, but the research shows that k is near
the k such that

abs(T - (1 + á^2)k^2)

is a minimum in that with positive k it is greater than or equal to
that value, and has the residue given by the equation above.

So which is it? Is k^2 = (1 + a^2)^{-1}nT mod p, or is
k near to sqrt(T / (1 + a^2))? These are by no means
necessarily close to each other. And what does "near"
mean? If p is large, how much searching must you do to
find a number whose quadratic residue is k?

Quote:

So attacking an RSA number could be feasible if all that is true just
by picking a large prime p, and trying it. If it doesn't work, try
another, and 50% of them should work, and then you'd have z.

No. You would still have to search for k, from
what you just said. That includes having to search for a
quadratic residue modulo a large prime. How do you
do that?

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You may run into something that really works, and others do review what you
have so far, and you have brought up interesting points in Abstract Algebra
that are complicated. The whining is distracting and invites attacks.

But what if I've followed the rules--like with publication--and it
hasn't mattered?

You HAVEN'T followed the rules. You have submitted
papers that you KNEW were wrong (e.g. APF, the second
time you submitted it). You have submitted a version of
APF with the name of Andrew Beckwith (a published author)
as a co-author, only in the hope of getting it accepted,
even though Beckwith did not write one word of the paper.
You have submitted papers when you knew there were
substantive serious objections which you had not been
able to refute. Far from following the rules, you have
committed fraud. The papers were wrong and were duly
rejected, and I doubt the editors ever knew that fraud
was involved. They were rejected on their own lack of
merit.

Further: after APF was rejected (at least twice),
you started claiming that the underlying ring in the
paper was NOT the ring of algebraic numbers. This was
a blatant obvious lie. Yet you clung to it for weeks,
and probably still do. To say that you "follow the
rules" must mean that "the rules" do not exclude lying.

Quote:

Is my only hope factoring a large number?

That would be sufficient. Why don't you do it?

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Some are really trying to help you. Some attack the whining.

Ok.

Most are just making fun of you. Many of these are
hateful but you can just blow them off. The serious
replies which demonstrate you are wrong are ignored or
you dismiss them as lies. That is a mistake.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Most do tell the truth, it is an honor, and their truth is in the language
of Math and honorable traceable back to Newton, and before thousands of
years, etc Most are too busy working on hard problems, like you are, and
have no time to spend even thinking of being deceptive.

Mathematicians may be the most trustworthy group
around.

Quote:

Thanks for the reply.

I appreciate further feedback from others. I'm unlikely to reply, but
I will try to read them all in this thread, within reason.

You may read them but you will not accept valid
criticism.

Marcus.

> James Harris

Lits O'Hate

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:39 pm

Guest

On Mar 5, 8:31 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

No.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

No.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Yes. No.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You should post much more than you do, especially after midnight.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

I can't speak for other, but my reason is simple.

Your articles make me laugh. You post to Usenet because it's
the only place you've found where you get the attention you
need. I give you some attention, and you give me some comedy.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Yes.

--
"I'm like a super janitor." -- James Harris

junoexpress

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:21 pm

Guest

On Mar 5, 8:31 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

Never have had any

Don't have any now
Never will have any
(hope that's clear enough)

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Yes.

No.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

Difficult question.

I guess it depends on why you are posting in the first place.
I have a theory though that you are having one big joke at our
expense. Sometimes, I think you are playing the motley fool
intentionally and
having one big joke on us. Part of me thinks you know you are wrong,
and
that you are in fact, inventing this shit up to create an "Office"
like
spoof. You are like the David Brent of mathematics (or Steve Carrell,
if
you like the US version better): the guy who can never get it right,
who is always wrong, yet despite every situation in which he fails,
never realizes it is *him*, and keeps on with his stupid ways.
Although he knows nothing, that does not keep him from having an
opinion on everything, and of course, he feels it his duty to share
these "deep", Jack Handy-like insights with everyone.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but you do have to admit that the
coincidences are quite extraordinary!

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Like Annie Lennox sings,"Some of the want to abuse you, some of the

want to be abused..."

I can't answer for other posters, but I *personally* find your
failures very satisfying. They help validate my philosophy of what
mathematics is.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Of course. Why wouldn't I? They certainly have exposed your hoaxes all

too easily.

Quote:

Thank you.

Why you are most welcome James.

Quote:

James Harris

CarterBanks

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:59 pm

Guest

"JSH" <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e2ee5cf-e95e-4e0e-8580-8974677f1717@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for the replies so far. I will not reply to them all.

But I have a reply here. Comments below...

On Mar 5, 7:09 pm, "CarterBanks" <spaml...@nospam.com> wrote:

Quote:

"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

snip

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

Deliberately yes, in the one case where your paper was withdrawn because
of
errors, it is their responsibility to prevent substandard technical
content
(any paper with errors) from being published. No fraud involved, that is
too time consuming and complicated.

The journal had the paper for nine months and I was in continual
communication by email and told them that I was an amateur researcher.

As a rhetorical question, why would the editors publish a paper from
an admitted amateur that had errors?

One of my favorite later emails AFTER publication from one of the
editors in reply to me thinking them for publication noted that
mathematics was important regardless of the source, even if it came
from a janitor.

I'm not a janitor. The cultural reference seemed obvious to me.

They don't know what you do or look like, and they do not care. If you go to
any major college se what nationalities are there even on a website, most
are from India, China, Europe, etc, it is an international mix.
Some amateurs are really good, but your paper did not get adequately
reviewed before publication, they should have rejected it earlier in the
process, and it was most likely the editor and crew did not have time to do
it.
And it is obvious they did not have time to do all the work required to
publish a formal journal.

Quote:

So then, if the editors were that all the way in, how does it make
sense to so many of you that the paper was actually flawed?

Editors did not read it on first pass, they would have rejected it. A
version of this paper was available to look at several years ago, and it was
too short, lacked explination of your assumptions, missing dirivations, and
lacked needed form and structure. If you worked wtih a Professor, he would
have gotten it into shape for you.

Quote:

Isn't a cover-up more likely? Especially considering that later the
journal DIED? And Cameron University removed all mention of it from
their websites so that EMIS had to save 9 years of math papers out of
the goodness of its heart?

No cover-up at all. Your paper needed too much work, and just lack of time
of the editors/sponcers to support a technical publication.
Some bad papers do get published, and then they get rejected or modified, or
corrected in a note in the next issue. Just go read a few of the journals
at the library and you will see.

Quote:

Do you really think that one paper had the power to destroy and entire
math journal and 9 years of other papers, because it was wrong?

Your paper was not part of the decision to close the math journal, nor to
remove papers from a website.
It is all still public information anyone can look at it in the library.

<snip>

Quote:

3. Can important ideas in factoring be presented loudly without
anyone around the world noticing or caring, like governments or
security agencies if those factoring ideas could lead to major
breaches in security?

yes, check out early days of PHP. Also there are several free complex
multi
level encription/decrytion SW on the internet that no Goveernment can
break
anyway. The Gov just want their stuff to stay secure, most of that are
very
very large Psudo Random number streams, and have nothing to do with
factoring.

I'm afraid that is the case, which is why I am somewhat paused as I
consider what to do next.

You read my response wrong.
What ever you come up with applicable to encription/decription, has already
been exceeded by others and is freely available.
You are looking at factoring, which applies to a very small subset of
encryption.
That has nothing to do with Psudo Random sequences, nor a majority of
encryption systems, which are stronger than RSA.
Most people that solve RSA publish how they do it, no problem

<snip>

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You may run into something that really works, and others do review what
you
have so far, and you have brought up interesting points in Abstract
Algebra
that are complicated. The whining is distracting and invites attacks.

But what if I've followed the rules--like with publication--and it
hasn't mattered?

Is my only hope factoring a large number?

include it in your research, something like that RSA100 because it will have
an effect on what number sizes you choose for n, or z or the others, and it
will show you the length of the subloops needed to support your approach

James Harris

Joshua Cranmer

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:01 pm

Guest

JSH wrote:

Quote:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

Yes.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

Yes. As I have frequently commented, I do not believe that even a
"complete" solution to the factoring problem would cause a breakdown in
financial markets nor even major security in general.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Yes. No.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

I think that you should stick to talking about your factoring problem
here, and, when you do so, be receptive and polite to criticism. In
short, use Usenet in the way it was designed. I believe that your long
philosophical rants bordering on conspiracy theories should be posted on
your blog or elsewhere.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Because they like poking fun at you, knowing that you will never be able
to effect harm on them?

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Yes.

Jesse F. Hughes

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:02 pm

Guest

willo_thewisp@hotmail.com writes:

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Probably because they don't realize how dumb you are.

This must be the single least plausible response I can imagine. And
that includes JSH's own opinion regarding grand conspiracies of the
modern priesthood.

--
"If you have a really big idea, you can get a measure of how big it is
by how much people resist the obvious. From what I've seen, I have a
REALLY, REALLY, *REALLY*, BIG DISCOVERY!!!"
--James Harris: If I'm not important, how come people ignore me?

Joshua Cranmer

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:12 pm

Guest

Joshua Cranmer wrote:

Quote:

JSH wrote:
1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

Yes.

I would like to qualify a bit more:

From someone who is relatively inexperienced in this subject, I do not
believe that your current insights into factoring will yield important
mathematical results. Your idea of surrogate factoring seems very
counterintuitive; I have not been following hard enough to see if the
current WIPs still use surrogate factoring. However, in the latter forms
as well, my quick glances seem to indicate rather large numbers of free
variables, which would require extreme work to yield on effective
factoring algorithm.

That said, I believe that you may have valuable insights in areas
unrelated to factoring.

Michael Press

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:19 am

Guest

In article
<4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You choose to feed the wrong part of yourself. You have
also found a way to gorge by posting elementary mathematics
accompanied by inflated and baseless claims; infantile
fantasies of omnipotence; and vicious attacks. Some people
know you engage in self destructive activities, and feed
you anyway, because they despise you and want to see you,
as the creature in the last reel of a science fiction
movie, a decaying, foetid puddle of unimaginably foul slime
on the floor. Free yourself.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:19 am

Guest

In article
<31d611fb-09b7-4981-9a6f-a4977ac9cfa0@13g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Mensanator <mensanator@aol.com> wrote:

[...]

Quote:

Do you really think that one paper had the power to destroy and entire
math journal and 9 years of other papers, because it was wrong?

21. Do you believe in The Hammer?

I think this is the first invocation.

From: "James Harris" <jm...@JSHent.com>
Subject: JSH: Hidden proof revealed, FLT for p>3
Date: 1999/03/08
Message-ID: <7c23rf$5ip$2@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
X-Deja-AN: 452859827
X-Posted-Path-Was: not-for-mail
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
X-ELN-Date: 9 Mar 1999 03:17:03 GMT
X-ELN-Insert-Date: Mon Mar 8 19:25:04 1999
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Newsgroups: sci.math

When I realized a couple of days ago that my latest attempt at a proof of
FLT was still incomplete, I was a bit bummed. It took me about an hour to
notice something interesting, which was that I had proven Case 1. ( Not so
easy to see when you're playing with p=3 all the time which doesn't have a
Case 1.)

That heartened me a bit, so I made my "...self-pity" posting which actually
contained that portion of the proof within it, only slightly hidden. I
thought it amusing. A bit later I realized the complete proof for p>3 and
also put that in a reply to my "...self-pity" posting. I still think it
amusing.

This one looks rock solid which is good because it's meant to do a teeny bit
of bashing. The hammer is at the top of its arc but we have a while yet
before the blow because...you folks will ignore the obvious. If I didn't
think otherwise I wouldn't make this post, despite my growing ennui...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Michael Press

CarterBanks

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:19 am

Guest

Quote:

"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

snip

Quote:

So then, if the editors were that all the way in, how does it make
sense to so many of you that the paper was actually flawed?

Quote:

Do you really think that one paper had the power to destroy and entire
math journal and 9 years of other papers, because it was wrong?

Your paper was not part of the decision to close the math journal, nor to
remove papers from a website.
It is all still public information anyone can look at it in the library.

<snip>

Quote:

3. Can important ideas in factoring be presented loudly without
anyone around the world noticing or caring, like governments or
security agencies if those factoring ideas could lead to major
breaches in security?

yes, check out early days of PHP. Also there are several free complex
multi
level encription/decrytion SW on the internet that no Goveernment can
break
anyway. The Gov just want their stuff to stay secure, most of that are
very
very large Psudo Random number streams, and have nothing to do with
factoring.

I'm afraid that is the case, which is why I am somewhat paused as I
consider what to do next.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You may run into something that really works, and others do review what
you
have so far, and you have brought up interesting points in Abstract
Algebra
that are complicated. The whining is distracting and invites attacks.

But what if I've followed the rules--like with publication--and it
hasn't mattered?

Is my only hope factoring a large number?

Al Lergy

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:19 am

Guest

Quote:

"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

yes, extending to larger numbers may be difficult

Ok.

Quote:

the goodness of its heart?

Do you really think that one paper had the power to destroy and entire
math journal and 9 years of other papers, because it was wrong?

***they were over extended, no time to do it right, you paper got in
unreviewed, I saw it posted long ago, it needed too much work, your paper
had no effect on the pblisher, they were folding anyway. Math guy are all
honest, they are trying to solve problems tougher than yours, and need
everybodies help. Being dishonest take too much time and effort.

Quote:

3. Can important ideas in factoring be presented loudly without
anyone around the world noticing or caring, like governments or
security agencies if those factoring ideas could lead to major
breaches in security?

yes, check out early days of PHP. Also there are several free complex
multi
level encription/decrytion SW on the internet that no Goveernment can
break
anyway. The Gov just want their stuff to stay secure, most of that are
very
very large Psudo Random number streams, and have nothing to do with
factoring.

I'm afraid that is the case, which is why I am somewhat paused as I
consider what to do next.

****You misunderstand, breakers of the RSA show and tell how the did it
freely and they are heros
IF you do it you will be a hero too

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

yes, but how much does it improve anything in quantitave terms?

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You may run into something that really works, and others do review what
you
have so far, and you have brought up interesting points in Abstract
Algebra
that are complicated. The whining is distracting and invites attacks.

But what if I've followed the rules--like with publication--and it
hasn't mattered?

Is my only hope factoring a large number?

*****you should include large numbers in your formulas, if T is 100 bytes
long, that means k is 25 bytes long and so on.

I appreciate further feedback from others. I'm unlikely to reply, but
I will try to read them all in this thread, within reason.

James Harris

Rupert

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:29 am

Guest

On Mar 6, 9:31 am, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

No.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

If a viable factoring algorithm was posted on the Internet, presented
sufficiently clearly that any qualified person could understand it,
then pretty soon RSA Laboratories would hear about it and would
announce to their customers that the RSA cryptosystem was no longer
secure. I don't know about government and security agencies getting
involved.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

No.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

Do whatever you feel like. If your goal is to do some original and
interesting mathematical research, you'll have to make major changes
in your strategy. If that's what you want to do, you really should
listen to the people who are trying to help you.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

You know, this is an interesting one. I have a weakness for trying to
reason with cranks. But you attract more replies than other cranks. I
don't know exactly why this is. There's something about you.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Yes.

Quote:

Thank you.

Any time.

> James Harris

Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:51 pm Science Forum Index