Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: JSH on 13 Apr 2008 20:29 On Apr 13, 5:02 pm, Rotwang <sg...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On 14 Apr, 00:48, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 13, 2:12 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > > wrote: > > > > Oh, I don't know. I think sometimes truly successful people have > > > every reason to attack and discredit fools, using their successful > > > position to raise the signal to noise ratio. > > > -- > > > Name one who does. > > John Baez. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baez Ok, now give a link to him arguing with amateurs. I'm curious to read what he might actually say versus what you think he does. James Harris
From: Gage on 13 Apr 2008 20:47 JSH wrote: > On Apr 13, 5:02 pm, Rotwang <sg...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >> On 14 Apr, 00:48, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 13, 2:12 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >>> wrote: >>>> Oh, I don't know. I think sometimes truly successful people have >>>> every reason to attack and discredit fools, using their successful >>>> position to raise the signal to noise ratio. >>>> -- >>> Name one who does. >> John Baez. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baez > > Ok, now give a link to him arguing with amateurs. I'm curious to read > what he might actually say versus what you think he does. > > > James Harris Here are a few links that should whet your appetite: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/TWF.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_index which had a link to here http://www.crank.net/ where I happened to find this http://www.crank.net/fermat.html where I also happened to find this http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/sgrp-flt.htm I guess that's going to follow you around for the rest of your life. Wouldn't you say ?
From: Rotwang on 13 Apr 2008 20:49 On 14 Apr, 01:29, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 5:02 pm, Rotwang <sg...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 14 Apr, 00:48, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 13, 2:12 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > > > wrote: > > > > > Oh, I don't know. I think sometimes truly successful people have > > > > every reason to attack and discredit fools, using their successful > > > > position to raise the signal to noise ratio. > > > > -- > > > > Name one who does. > > > John Baez. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baez > > Ok, now give a link to him arguing with amateurs. Here you can read a post in which he is debunking some guy's crackpot theory: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math/msg/96f7f72b572ce922 He also came up with the "crackpot index": http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Still, if that isn't good enough then here's another name for you: Gerardus 't Hooft (and you really shouldn't need to look *him* up on Wikipedia).
From: Pubkeybreaker on 14 Apr 2008 10:21 On Apr 12, 6:07 am, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > On Apr 11, 6:49 pm, Tim Smith<reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > >>> [...] has a record of not suffering fools easily. [....] > >> None of the above, though, is inconsistent with being a jerk. > > > Every time I have ever seen the phrase "not suffer fools gladly," > > it has been an apologist acknowledgment of a respected person's > > bad behavior. It's a code phrase used to describe high > > status jerks. > > I think it's always used by someone referring to another person's > way of dealing with "fools". I would think that there's generally > an implied context, such as " when the topic is algorithms used > in number theory" . How often is it said on TV? You will notice that nothing I said included name calling such as "jerk". Nor did I call the OP a "fool". Indeed, I went out of my way to state that I intended no insult toward the OP. Stating that someone lacks knowledge is not and should not be consisidered an insult or ad hominem attack. It is a simple statement of fact. Ignorance is easily corrected, unless it is WILLFUL ignorance. In which case, the person deserves to be called a crank. I did not even call the OP a crank. I did say that some of his discussion indicated crank-like behavior. I get the impression that some people who post herein believe that any criticism of the work of another constitutes "jerk-like" behavior. Note also that Dik Winter also replied to the OP, and that the OP's response was to become argumentative with someone (Dik) who knows far more about the subject than the OP. When the OP started talking about "square roots", all I did was to state that it was an elementary and well-solved problem. When someone else asked about factoring Gaussians, I simply stated an algorithm. When the OP talked about his "new" method using Gaussian integers as a new way of looking at Fermat's method, I pointed out that they were P-time equivalent.
From: Pubkeybreaker on 14 Apr 2008 10:29
On Apr 12, 4:20 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > In article <66bfkpF2jl0h...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Facts: > ... > > - Lankinen shows a very high resistance to corrections, the primary sign of > > a luser and a crank. > > Go back and read the whole thread. When corrected by people who are > helpful in their corrections, he has not shown high resistance. > > Silverman's corrections are basically just a declaration that he knows > more (true), that Lankinen's approach is completely worthless (true from > the point of view of advancing mathematics, not true from the point of > view of sparking someone's interest in learning more about math), that > Lankinen should learn more (true). > > But how about including in that last a useful suggestion as to how to > learn more? Just telling him to read a book is not all that useful. > How about naming a specific book? How about using Google? There are so many good books on algorithms that naming just one would be pointless. My first suggestion would be to read Knuth Vol. 2. Chapters 4.3 and 4.5. There is NOTHING wrong with an amatuer trying to invent a new method. However, there IS something wrong with doing so without any knowledge of what has already been done. |