Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: JSH on 12 Apr 2008 18:13 On Apr 12, 3:01 pm, tc...(a)lsa.umich.edu wrote: > In article <fd30cce9-7fcb-427c-9131-c20659d85...(a)y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Why? I like the sports analogy as it is deliberately a way to step > >far enough away from academics to show just how truly bizarre are > >attacks against novice investigators as imagine Tiger Woods attacking > >an amateur about his golf. > > >You can't. > > That's mostly because it's difficult to imagine an amateur confidently > claiming to be much better than Tiger Woods, when he or she isn't. > On what planet? Every day on THIS planet there are probably hundreds of amateur golfers declaring themselves to be as good as or greater than Tiger Woods, at least in some particular area. But why would Tiger Woods care? Why would a top mathematician--one who TRULY is top--care about some amateur talking about that person's own research as if it's great? Who cares? Why does it matter? > Without commenting on Bob Silverman in particular, I can say with confidence > that there many extremely brilliant and accomplished people who are also > jerks and who do not hesitate to attack others. Some of them attack others But what if that's a lie? I suggest you consider the possibility that maybe they are NOT really accomplished but people just say they are. How do you know the difference? I challenge you to prove that most top mathematicians today are not fakes who lie about their research and are supported by other mathematicians who lie about their research. How do you prove that to be not true? > regardless of "rank"; others attack only easy targets and are obsequious to > people of high status. Of course, there are many extremely brilliant and > accomplished people who are extraordinarily gracious and patient. > > Being unfairly ignored because you don't have the right pedigree is still > a widespread phenomenon in today's world. Being ignored because you're an > idiot who is oblivious to your own idiocy is an even more widespread > phenomenon. > Yup. Ignoring someone is the way of the world when someone does not threaten you nor do they interest you. The real point of my analogy is that Tiger Woods just doesn't have any reason to care. So he can ignore all those amateurs out there who proudly may proclaim that they can putt better or drive better or whatever. > In short, there's no way to tell for sure whether an idea has merit purely > by observing the behavior of the parties concerned. Surely this truism was > obvious from the start? It's a lie. People show interest in the things that interest them. Like I have an interest in pointing out stupid lies that people like you push as truisms. So I take the time to post in reply to you. Do you take time to do things that do not interest you? Does anyone really? Is there a separate type of human being from mathematicians, who actually cares about the things he or she takes interest in, versus mathematicians who can take an interest in ripping on nobodies that they should be ignoring, but instead take the time to rip on. Who worries about non-threats? James Harris
From: Tim Tyler on 12 Apr 2008 18:17 JSH wrote: > I challenge you to prove that most top mathematicians today are not > fakes who lie about their research and are supported by other > mathematicians who lie about their research. > > How do you prove that to be not true? Ah - so that's why they were called The X Files. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim(a)tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
From: JSH on 12 Apr 2008 18:20 On Apr 12, 1:51 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 huhti, 13:02, "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > - What is the use of indiscriminately praising Lankinen and thus encouraging > > him to waste more time? The longer this goes on the more painful his fall > > will be. You call that friendly? I call that heartless and evil. > > That won't hurt me, I have a day job & hefty savings. > > What DOES hurt me is condemnation without proper > examination of the evidence. No one for instance has > referred to prior art when it comes to my method. > > Alas, I figure no one will until the Dole man nods :-( > > - Risto - These people are not truly accomplished so they look for low hanging fruit, like attacking amateurs, which is like hyenas that think they're lions hunting for rats. Lions hunt big-game because, well, because they're lions. If you're chasing rats then you're not a big lion. Do you know any truly accomplished people who behave in the way they do? I don't. They are fakes. They do play-play research and lie about it so that they can get grants or other funding. The biggest threat to them is real research so they stay on newsgroups to go after amateurs to blow them out at the starting gate, as here is where the amateurs come. James Harris
From: tchow on 12 Apr 2008 18:40 Hey, crossing swords with the notorious JSH is more fun than I thought it would be! In article <50df7fb2-6265-4bd4-ab86-67a213562175(a)w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Every day on THIS planet there are probably hundreds of amateur >golfers declaring themselves to be as good as or greater than Tiger >Woods, at least in some particular area. Hmmm...on reflection, I agree that you're probably right about that. >But why would Tiger Woods care? > >Why would a top mathematician--one who TRULY is top--care about some >amateur talking about that person's own research as if it's great? > >Who cares? Why does it matter? I agree that it may be difficult to explain *why* such a person cares. That doesn't mean that such people *don't* care. People's motives can be inscrutable sometimes. I don't know much about Tiger Woods as a person. But there are certainly people who seem to have nothing to gain by denigrating other people's work, yet they do it anyway. Perhaps they are insecure; perhaps there is a more complicated psychological factor at work. >I suggest you consider the possibility that maybe they are NOT really >accomplished but people just say they are. Oh, I've considered the possibility. >How do you know the difference? I'm talking about cases where I understand enough about their accomplishments to be able to recognize firsthand that they are tremendous. I'm not taking anyone's word (their own or anyone else's) for it. The mathematical content of their work is breathtakingly beautiful. But, as people, they are jerks. Why? I don't know. But it's undeniably a fact. >I challenge you to prove that most top mathematicians today are not >fakes who lie about their research and are supported by other >mathematicians who lie about their research. > >How do you prove that to be not true? Prove it to *you*? To the famous JSH? I've come up with a few interesting proofs in my time, but my proving skills fall far, far short of such a task. Maybe after I collect the remaining $6 million Clay Prize money I'll think about trying to prove something to JSH. But until then I must plead incompetence. Proving it to myself, however, is far easier. All I have to do is to study the mathematics in question so that I can understand the research firsthand without having to take anyone else's word for it. I've done that in enough cases that I am confident about what the situation is. There are certainly some fakes around. There are liars and thieves. I know plenty of examples. Are *most* of them that way? No. They exist, but the percentage is fairly low. It's harder to bluff in mathematics than in most other academic fields. Not impossible, but harder. >The real point of my analogy is that Tiger Woods just doesn't have any >reason to care. Again, with the caveat that I don't know much about Tiger Woods personally, I agree that he might not have any reason to care. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't care. >So he can ignore all those amateurs out there who proudly may proclaim >that they can putt better or drive better or whatever. He can, but he might or might not. >People show interest in the things that interest them. True enough. >Do you take time to do things that do not interest you? Yes, I do. There are many factors at work in my behavior. I like to think that I am totally rational, but of course that is ridiculous. I do some things out of force of habit. I sometimes play computer games even though I think I shouldn't, because I get addicted. I hurt people I care about because I lose my temper or because I lose my self-control in other ways. >Who worries about non-threats? Plenty of people. If there weren't any, psychiatrists and therapists would have much less business than they do. -- Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
From: S.C.Sprong on 12 Apr 2008 18:42
In sci.math Risto Lankinen <rlankine(a)gmail.com> wrote: >What DOES hurt me is condemnation without proper examination of the >evidence. No one for instance has referred to prior art when it comes >to my method. Alright, I'll try to address your complaint: The subject you are addressing is so basic that it is a standard topic for university math textbooks. This also means that thanks to the WWW you can find a wealth of information. Like all of us, you often are expected to look for such basic information yourself. If you do that you shall find quite a lot of prior art. In case of algorithms it is customary to judge their merits on their so called 'complexity' or 'running time' or 'asymptotic growth rate', apart from their correctness, of course. For your algorithm this is rather easy: it is O(Sqrt[n]) (see Wikipedia for example for an introduction to these terms). Unfortunately this is by far not fast enough to look at for the professionals, because much faster methods have been found. Again, you can find basic introductions on the WWW, say for instance: <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrimeFactorizationAlgorithms.html> This means that no one can be expected to examine your evidence thoroughly, apart from math teachers. Now, the best advice has already been given: read up on the subject, attend introduction lectures (many universities allow that as long as you don't give them much (paper)work) etc. scs |