Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: Pubkeybreaker on 14 Apr 2008 10:31 On Apr 12, 4:51 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. This is false. Dik Winter told you that what you were doing was just a (disguised) form of Fermat's Method. This certainly IS a reference to prior art.
From: Pubkeybreaker on 14 Apr 2008 10:40 On Apr 13, 4:46 am, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 huhti, 01:42, "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > In sci.math Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Note that I have _never_ claimed efficiency, but novelty, > and AFAIK, no one has used similar technique (Complex > Base Digital Analysis) for factorization. uh huh. Anyone can claim novelty on something worthless. And last week I took my son's old broken IPOD, peeled off the cover, and nailed it to a 2x4. Hey look everyone!!! I invented something new!!!!! I call it "Creative Eyesore". Noone has invented a "similar technique" because: (1) It is just a minor and worthless variation on something that is already well known. (2) Anyone with the skills to do it recognizes that the effort is pointless.
From: Pubkeybreaker on 15 Apr 2008 10:34 On Apr 14, 10:21 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. No comments?
From: Pubkeybreaker on 15 Apr 2008 10:34 On Apr 14, 10:31 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 4:51 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. > > This is false. Dik Winter told you that what you were doing > was just a (disguised) form of Fermat's Method. This certainly > IS a reference to prior art. No comments? I would be especially interested in comments from those who felt that I was being a "jerk".
From: Nick Wedd on 15 Apr 2008 12:11
In message <2104b4ed-b84a-4c54-9309-15191ca8af64(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker(a)aol.com> writes >On Apr 14, 10:21�am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> 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. > >No comments? I don't know whose comments you want. When you accused the OP of writing "pure gibberish", I thought it a bit harsh, his statement "Fermat's factorization suffers a fixation to integers" appeared to me to have some meaning, which I attempted to explain (the OP then disowned my explanation). You responded with a full and clear explanation of how to factorise Gaussian integers, which impressed me; I learned from it, and I thought "this guy knows his stuff, I'll keep out of the argument". I don't understand why this thread has evolved into an argument about posting behaviour. I would be willing to bet that those who have criticised your posting style know less about factorisation than the other contributors to the thread. I hope that you will continue to post to this newsgroup. Nick -- Nick Wedd nick(a)maproom.co.uk |