mm-3397 === Subject: Re: Factoring idea, trying to recover something | > I never needed to factor an RSA challenge number. | | Yes you do. Because if you don't, people might start doubting your claims... | | So, come on, show us you can do it! If not for us, at least do it for | the rest of the world! Damn... I've scraped off more quadratic residue from the back end of my tailpipe in a few seconds than this wanker has been able to demonstrate, ever. Bloody hell - why do you insist on feeding this troll?? PLONK!! === Subject: Re: That was useless `You got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the \ affirmative and don't mess with mister-in-between' you don't need no stinking approval from anybody. === Subject: Re: That was useless <4467a522$0$15765$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net `You got to \ accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the > affirmative and don't mess with mister-in-between' > you don't need no stinking approval from anybody. Mathematicians are breaking the rules. It's not about approval as the stakes are very high here. You are like someone telling an Olympic athelete who has won the race and then the judges refused to award the gold that it's about approval and approval doesn't matter. Mathematicians are breaking the rules. They are letting the world think my successes are failures. They are holding on to their failures letting people believe they are successes. They are pushing me to force the situation in such a way that they can't just lie to the world and get away with it, but in the process other people can get hurt. These math wars are just stupid. === Subject: Re: That was useless http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711843 === Subject: Re: That was useless >> `You got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to \ the >> affirmative and don't mess with mister-in-between' >> you don't need no stinking approval from anybody. >Mathematicians are breaking the rules. >It's not about approval as the stakes are very high here. >You are like someone telling an Olympic athelete who has won the race >and then the judges refused to award the gold that it's about approval >and approval doesn't matter. >Mathematicians are breaking the rules. >They are letting the world think my successes are failures. Huh? You just _announced_ that your factoring method _is_ a failure! >They are holding on to their failures letting people believe they are >successes. >They are pushing me to force the situation in such a way that they >can't just lie to the world and get away with it, but in the process >other people can get hurt. >These math wars are just stupid. > ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: That was useless <4467a522$0$15765$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net `You got to \ accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the > affirmative and don't mess with mister-in-between' > you don't need no stinking approval from anybody. > Mathematicians are breaking the rules. > It's not about approval as the stakes are very high here. > You are like someone telling an Olympic athelete who has won the race > and then the judges refused to award the gold that it's about approval > and approval doesn't matter. > Mathematicians are breaking the rules. > They are letting the world think my successes are failures. > They are holding on to their failures letting people believe they are > successes. > They are pushing me to force the situation in such a way that they > can't just lie to the world and get away with it, but in the process > other people can get hurt. > These math wars are just stupid. James, why are there so many of your posts missing from the Google archive of the past few days? I don't always read Usenet at the weekend; I'm always sad when I miss what was clearly (from the snippets other people quoted) some of your best work... -- Larry Lard Replies to group please === Subject: Re: That was useless > James, why are there so many of your posts missing from the Google > archive of the past few days? I don't always read Usenet at the > weekend; I'm always sad when I miss what was clearly (from the > snippets other people quoted) some of your best work... If you want to read the one which started this thread (one of those that James has already deleted), it's right here: http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711133 Jose Carlos Santos === Subject: Re: How can this be true? mensanator@aol.com .8e\.be.93.b9.81F > can you explain it more exactly > it's so strange > The top figure gives the illusion that it is a 13x5 > triangle whose area would be 32.5. But as you > can see from this figure: > The difference is the sliver between the red and > green lines. > How much short? Compute the area of the four > individual parts: 12+5+7+8 = 32. > So the sliver must have an area of 0.5. > Now, when you re-arrange the pieces, the sliver is > now on outside the outside of a 13x5 triangle, so > the apparent area of the lower figure is now 32.5+0.5 > or 33. > BUT - the four figures still only comprise an area of > 32, thus we get an extra hole of area 1. thank you i see ^ ^ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709320 === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem > At least every new thread view starting with subject: Re: to simply killfile him or at least want to harass me with responding to > these spam messages. I couldn't have said it better. I'm surprised they actually take the guy seriously, as if he really is a mathematician, only he's got a few figures misplaced. That's the amazing part to me. They really think he knows what he's talking about. ~ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem > At least every new thread view starting with subject: Re: to simply killfile him or at least want to harass me with responding to > these spam messages. > I couldn't have said it better. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem I created a message filter for jhstevh@msn.com long ago. But that's not what's being discussed here. I'm interested in learning if anyone actually believes that James is driven by anything other than a megalomaniacal craving to be the center of everybody's undivided attention. ~ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem > I created a message filter for jhstevh@msn.com long ago. > But that's not what's being discussed here. I'm interested in learning > if anyone actually believes that James is driven by anything other than > a megalomaniacal craving to be the center of everybody's undivided > attention. I don't believe in any more. I think he is an artistic creation of a clever, well-educated mathematician, maybe Prof. Ullrich. He gets so many things wrong in such complicated ways. I think the real surprise will be when the JSH puppet master posts something really profound and difficult to understand, but correct, trying to troll up some denials and insults. Google piltdown man. I expect === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem > I don't believe in any more. I think he is an artistic > creation of a clever, well-educated mathematician, maybe Prof. Ullrich. He > gets so many things wrong in such complicated ways. > I think the real surprise will be when the JSH puppet master posts something > really profound and difficult to understand, but correct, trying to troll \ up > some denials and insults. And I can't help but hope you're right. ~ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem OpenPGP: id=A0E28D18 > But that's not what's being discussed here. I'm interested in learning > if anyone actually believes that James is driven by anything other than > a megalomaniacal craving to be the center of everybody's undivided > attention. How do you know that JSH is not an advanced AI program made by Google (and fed with the Google database)? Or an improved variant of SCIgen? === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem > But that's not what's being discussed here. I'm interested in learning > if anyone actually believes that James is driven by anything other than > a megalomaniacal craving to be the center of everybody's undivided > attention. > How do you know that JSH is not an advanced AI program made by Google > (and fed with the Google database)? JSH predates Google. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem <4cq2c3F17algoU1@news.dfncis.de> But that's not what's being discussed here. I'm \ interested in learning > > if anyone actually believes that James is driven by anything other than > > a megalomaniacal craving to be the center of everybody's undivided > > attention. > How do you know that JSH is not an advanced AI program made by Google > > (and fed with the Google database)? > JSH predates Google. Maybe that was the Beta version. > -- > dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 > home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem > How do you know that JSH is not an advanced AI program made by Google > (and fed with the Google database)? Or an improved variant of SCIgen? Hey, there's a great story-line for a new movie. But, I'd still wait and buy the DVD. ~ === Subject: Re: Solution of the factoring problem OpenPGP: id=A0E28D18 Breaking MAGENTA with only having access to a blackbox device doing the encryption. *SCNR* === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709277 === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem days. My association with the Department is that of an alumnus. >http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709277 I know what you are trying to do, but is it really necessary to do it with ->every<- post? A single link to mathforum is more than sufficient (per thread), I'd think; I wouldn't even go that far meself. -- It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) Arturo Magidin magidin@math.berkeley.edu === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem >http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709277 > I know what you are trying to do, but is it really necessary to do it > with ->every<- post? A single link to mathforum is more than > sufficient (per thread), I'd think; I wouldn't even go that far meself. Or just replying to the JSH message with little or no content. === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709277 > I know what you are trying to do, but is it really necessary to do it > with ->every<- post? A single link to mathforum is more than > sufficient (per thread), I'd think; I wouldn't even go that far meself. > Or just replying to the JSH message with little or no content. If you're suggesting Arturo should reply to a particular JSH message, you'll need to be more specific than just the JSH message with little or no content. That hardly pins it down at all. -jiw === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem days. My association with the Department is that of an alumnus. >>http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709277 >> I know what you are trying to do, but is it really necessary to do it >> with ->every<- post? A single link to mathforum is more than >> sufficient (per thread), I'd think; I wouldn't even go that far meself. >> Or just replying to the JSH message with little or no content. >If you're suggesting Arturo should reply to a particular >JSH message, you'll need to be more specific than just >the JSH message with little or no content. That hardly >pins it down at all. I suspect the suggestion is that, in order to preserve the contents of the post in the archive despite the efforts of James to remove them, one can reply to a post of James's, and have the reply contain little or no [new] content; i.e., basically just quoting the previous message. Then the archive will contain the quoted messages. But I'm just guessing. -- It's not denial. I'm just very selective about what I accept as reality. --- Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) Arturo Magidin magidin@math.berkeley.edu === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem >> http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4709277 > I know what you are trying to do, but is it really necessary to do it > with ->every<- post? A single link to mathforum is more than > sufficient (per thread), I'd think; I wouldn't even go that far meself. Ok, I got overzealous. :-) Jose Carlos Santos === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4708248 === Subject: Re: Solving the factoring problem : in mathematics, is trivially easy--if you know how to solve it-- > This is generally true of all problems everywhere. If you know how to > solve them they're trivially easy. > : Logically then the solution to the factoring problem is > Rather than read through your awkward prose, could you please show us a > few examples? Or if you could provide some sort of solid algorithmic > statement of your result I would happily code it up and run it. He can't, and he won't. --- Christopher Heckman === Subject: Re: Why factoring solution works http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4710164 === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711401 === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4710106 === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works > jstevh@msn.com a .8ecrit : > and the math is none the wiser, ... > And it doesn't care about your bank account. ... > wtf??? LOL === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works [...] > Who knew that such a seemingly hard problem requiring huge amounts of > computer resources and efforts of hundreds of people worldwide could be > reduced to something trivial enough to give to a kid to program for > homework? > It is amazing how powerful mathematics can be. > Some of you have not a clue what mathematics is, or just how powerful > it can be. > I want some of you to consider how weak some people try to make it. > They fight me, but their fight just forced my hand here. > By using social forces they could convince people of things not true, > but what happens when the truth is forced? > Things break. And it's the fault not only of the people who lied to > you, and convinced you, but your fault for believing, and believing in > them, against mathematical proof. > Mathematical proof is not about opinion, politics, or what makes you > feel good. > And it doesn't care about your bank account. FWIW, in my dreams, Mathematics tells me nothing. There are other number theory problems, none of them related to factoring or RSA. For example, are the non-trivial solutions to A^6 + B^6 + C^6 + D^6 + E^6 = F^6 ? or even A^6 + B^6 + C^6 + D^6 + E^6 + F^6 = G^6 ? 144^5 = 133^5 + 110^5 + 84^5 + 27^5 (Lander and Parkin, 1967) 20615673^4 = 2682440^4 + 15365639^4 + 18796760^4 (Elkies, 1986) 422481^4 = 95800^4 + 217519^4 + 414560^4 (Frye, 1988) Proofs: [bc says: 144^5 = 61917364224 133^5+110^5+84^5+27^5 = 61917364224 ] [bc says: 20615673^4 = 180630077292169281088848499041 2682440^4 + 15365639^4 + 18796760^4 = 180630077292169281088848499041 ] [bc says: 422481^4 = 31858749840007945920321 95800^4 + 217519^4 + 414560^4 = 31858749840007945920321 ] http://euler.free.fr/index.htm Let's find a power of 6 equal to 6 powers of 6. and This project is dedicated to all those who are fascinated by powers and integers. Webmaster: Jean-Charles Meyrignac. David Bernier === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works [jstevh@msn.com] I've been going back and forth for days with what I now am certain is a simple solution to the factoring problem, as in you just plug and chug as they say, and out pops the answer a very high percentage of the time, and I can't find a damn thing wrong with the argument. [Tim Peters] >> That's because you don't try examples to verify your reasoning. The >> problem with the argument would have been immediately obvious if you >> had -- it's dumb mistake territory. [jstevh@msn.com] > You still do not understand modern problem solving techniques. > Dumb mistakes are part of those methods, as sometimes, while doing > something that seems dumb, you can see an answer you might have > otherwise missed. You miss the point: you waste _days_ (those are your words: I've been going back and forth for days) because you're not actually talented enough to just think your way to correct results, and also refuse to take the minutes it would take to check your reasoning against concrete examples. That last is important because your reasoning is so often wrong, and so often refuted by small, easy-to-find counterexamples. JSH: here's a claim someone else: you're wrong JSH: whine, rant, froth, accuse, threaten, libel, slander someone else: ok, here's a trivial counterexample JSH: you don't understand modern problem solving techniques is just par for the course for you, and you never improve because _you_ don't learn techniques that actually work. Checking reasoning against examples is the single most valuable technique you could learn, since it _so_ often shows that your reasoning is wrong, and also reveals _where_ it goes wrong. It's a technique that would be uniquely valuable to you because \ it so directly opposes your weaknesses. When you refuse to embrace a simple technique that leads to the truth, what \ does that say about you? When you cling to obviously wrong claims for days, \ weeks and months, what does that say about you? The math is simple, but the idea that something believed for so long to be very difficult, is not, is very hard. So I keep going over the idea, over and over again, trying to figure out what must be wrong, because so many people thought the factoring problem was hard. I can't find anything wrong. >> Alas, that's no surprise: your failure to try examples causes you to >> announce proofs of incorrect claims more often than most people post in >> total, you know. > Yup. And I have more settled BIG results than any other person in the > last century. Besides coming up with a correct recursive formulation of the prime-counting \ function, I haven't seen any result of yours that was both non-trivial and correct. You certainly haven't settled any big-- or even interesting --questions that I know of (although you've certainly made more \ incorrect claims to have settled big questions than anyone else in my recent \ memory). > The techniques work. Like this one worked? You made an obvious logical error in your purported proof, which by your words above you were unable to see after days of effort. Even if it wasn't obvious to you, it only required _trying_ a 2-digit composite to bump into the error almost at once. That's a technique \ that, to date, has _always_ worked for your guesses at factoring methods: just try it on small composites, and the problems become clear immediately. Now you snipped all the math out of my reply, presumably because you're embarrassed to admit you were wrong here, or wrong in such a silly way. That doesn't change that you were wrong, or that you could have discovered that yourself very easily simply by trying your method. Fail to do that once and you're just foolish; fail to do that time and again and you deserve \ to be labelled invincibly ignorant. > My problem has been getting mathematicians to follow their own rules > and accept the proofs I do have, so I moved to an area where simple > denial of proof would not work. And once again you repeatedly claimed to have a proof when you didn't, and once again repeatedly claimed to have a proof when counterexamples using small 2-digit integers were easy to find (indeed, hard _not_ to find: Dik Winter was quite lucky to pick a teensy (T, r, n) triple where the first square root didn't fail). > The factoring problem is the one area where a solution cannot simply be > ignored, or denied, by people refusing to follow rules. That's true. It's also an area where you can never hope to bull your way to acceptance: to succeed here, you must produce non-trivial integer factors of hard-to-factor composites efficiently. So far you have nothing in this area of any value. (Ya, you'll continue bullting about your April 10th surrogate factoring equations, but nobody is going to pay any attention to that mess _unless_ you first crack a hard composite using it -- \ which you can't do, although you haven't admitted that yet.) > I do not need a solution to the factoring problem EXCEPT to force > mathematicians to tell the truth about my primary research. > It is rather sad. I agree that mathematicians lying about your research is a sad delusion, but \ happily it's one I don't share :-) === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works [Tim Peters] >> That's because you don't try examples to verify your reasoning. The >> problem with the argument would have been immediately obvious if you >> had -- it's dumb mistake territory. > [jstevh@msn.com] > You still do not understand modern problem solving techniques. > Dumb mistakes are part of those methods, as sometimes, while doing > something that seems dumb, you can see an answer you might have > otherwise missed. > You miss the point: you waste _days_ (those are your words: I've been > going back and forth for days) because you're not actually talented enough > to just think your way to correct results, and also refuse to take the > minutes it would take to check your reasoning against concrete examples. > That last is important because your reasoning is so often wrong, and so > often refuted by small, easy-to-find counterexamples. I solved the problem. I figured it out today. Went back, noticed something that you clearly were not talented enough to notice, and solved the freaking factoring problem. It's such a goddamn waste. Such a stupid thing that it was freaking necessary. You stupid, stupid, stupid people. === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711844 === Subject: Re: JSH: Why factoring solution works >> [jstevh@msn.com] > I've been going back and forth for days with what I now am certain is > a > simple solution to the factoring problem, as in you just plug and > chug > as they say, and out pops the answer a very high percentage of the > time, and I can't find a damn thing wrong with the argument. >> [Tim Peters] That's because you don't try examples to verify your reasoning. The problem with the argument would have been immediately obvious if you had -- it's dumb mistake territory. >> [jstevh@msn.com] >> You still do not understand modern problem solving techniques. >> Dumb mistakes are part of those methods, as sometimes, while doing >> something that seems dumb, you can see an answer you might have >> otherwise missed. >> You miss the point: you waste _days_ (those are your words: I've been >> going back and forth for days) because you're not actually talented >> enough >> to just think your way to correct results, and also refuse to take the >> minutes it would take to check your reasoning against concrete examples. >> That last is important because your reasoning is so often wrong, and so >> often refuted by small, easy-to-find counterexamples. > I solved the problem. > I figured it out today. > Went back, noticed something that you clearly were not talented enough > to notice, and solved the freaking factoring problem. > It's such a goddamn waste. > Such a stupid thing that it was freaking necessary. > You stupid, stupid, stupid people. > It looks really ignorant of you when you call others names. Is there really \ any need for such childish behavior? It's like we're talking to a man with a \ social capacity of a 4 year old. Dave === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711479 === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711441 === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711214 === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless >Um, so the factoring idea I have is not new, and the solution I gave >was just the upper bound for positive x. How about that. Just yesterday the people who didn't see how you had a solution were stupid. In fact IIRC they were stupid, stupid, stupid. >[...] >Until my settled research is accepted I have little to do but piddle >around here or there when it comes to math stuff, and make a lot of >noise about factoring, as I have already mentioned many times my >reticence about putting up a working factoring solution. Not to mention your _inability_ to do so. >I think that would be punishing people who have nothing to do with any >of this, who have no clue about these math wars, so I just do not plan >on doing it. >But I can keep posting my speculations and dabblings here or there, >with it upfront that I have no intentions of ever succeeding at giving >a workable solution to the factoring problem. > ************************ David C. Ullrich === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless >And from what I've gathered, the biggest thing in your life is replying >to me. Since you know nothing about me, this is about as valid a statement as most of yours tend to be. There is plenty of evidence of what your life has consisted of for the past many years. I on the other hand have posted maybe 100 times in the same period. Lest say it took up 5 hours of my time in posting responses to you. That seems like a pretty small portion of my life. Yet again, you have nothing to back up your statements with. Typical. P.S. You seem to be the only person who thinks that your FLT proof is valid. You also seem to be the only person embrassing your object ring. Your prime counting function is slow compared to other known ways, and is fairly trivial at best. === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless >> My guess is that you have a psychological disorder. I'm not joking or trying to be mean either. I think that usenet is going to be plagued with your problem for quite a while. Its really unfortunate that you don't invest your time in actually trying to learn some real mathematics... you claim that you want to help the \ world but yet you don't put in any real effort. You keep on diddling over the same nonsensical ideas becaues you just can't accept that it makes no sense... but you've been doing it so long that it makes perfect sense... to \ everyone else though, its crap. Maybe you are right and everyone else cannot comprehend your genius. Either way you suck. Most geniuses are misunderstood... and you, are a freaken genius. But please go be a genius somewhere else... we mere mortals will never be able to understand the exhaustive knowledge you have... please don't burden us... it \ only makes our brains hurt. === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless <126f3a25cblh35e@corp.supernews.com trying to be mean either. That's a stupid guess. Psychological disorder does not equal publication in a math journal, where members of a Usenet newsgroup get together to mount an email campaign against a published paper, and the journal editors cave, only for the entire journal to die a few months later. It takes willful blindness on a scale hard to imagine to take in any of the facts here, and that's just one set of facts, and conclude that I am the one with the mental disorder. I clearly am a person who is frustrated by a broken system. I think some of you just keep hoping that if you wait long enough I will snap, before the world figures out what is really happening here, so that you get some satisfaction in your misery. === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless http://mathforum.org/kb/plaintext.jspa?messageID=4711842 === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless > trying to be mean either. > That's a stupid guess. > Psychological disorder does not equal publication in a math journal, > where members of a Usenet newsgroup get together to mount an email > campaign against a published paper, and the journal editors cave, only > for the entire journal to die a few months later. Take heart. There is some hope in the recent news for the presumed-paranoid. Remember all this people who thoght there phones were being tapped by the governmnet? === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless Originator: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) >Take heart. There is some hope in the recent news for the >presumed-paranoid. Remember all this people who thoght there phones were >being tapped by the governmnet? If I follow the analogy correctly, your theory is that although the reason that James thinks he's a great mathematician is that he's deluded, by a remarkable coinidence he *is* a great mathematician? -- Richard === Subject: Re: JSH: That was useless >