JSH: But it just amazes me
in [Cryptography]
|
From: Lits O'Hate on 9 Nov 2009 18:33 On Nov 8, 2:08 pm, James "Google SWJPAM" Harris wrote: > Think carefully. You may think there's no way you'd be in front of > the U.S. Senate testifying on this issue but I assure you that your > imagination simply needs to be bigger if you so think. > > In fact, replying to me, you may guarantee that happens as I put you > on a list of people who SHOULD testify. Please add me to your list. -- "so i let her go...a dream dies, just thoughts left, maybe i'm just not meant for that wife and kids thing, but for her i would have..." -- James Harris
From: Dann Corbit on 9 Nov 2009 19:21 In article <661918fe-72e2-4b17-8073-ed52b2fdd0d4 @f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jstevh(a)gmail.com says... > > I figured out years ago when I FINALLY had major mathematical finds > that there were these people in the mathematical field who didn't give > a damn. They didn't care about the truth, so what were they doing > there? > > Working it out over the years I've determined that for some people the > dream of royalty did not die with the transition to democratic > societies around the world, so they've simply worked to set up shop > where they can chase that dream. > > And academia is a place that lets them play at their dreams of being > royalty. > > In a class society the king does not have to be the best at anything. > He is simply the king. > > So for these people in setting themselves up as wannabe royalty, merit > does not matter. > > They don't care if you're right or wrong if you're someone they've de- > classed in their minds! > > And you can see how far they can go with what is increasingly looking > like a solution to the factoring problem. > > How hard to check? > > For major researchers, oh, minutes, maybe a few hours to program it > and watch it go, and then there should be calls to colleagues and > excited discussion, and oh yeah, notifying of security experts and > intelligence services around the world. > > But instead there is a dragging of the feet by people who don't want > to let go. > > I mentioned on sci.physics that the world may decide to 0 fund > academia and I'm increasingly thinking that will happen as the modern > academic world seems to attract medieval thinking, and in the medieval > world it was not about truth or merit, but about class. > > There has to be some way to break that out of academia so that people > within academic walls do not feel free to dismiss results that they > don't like. > > My suggestion is 0 funding. If the money is taken away then only the > best people will still remain as like me, they will find a way. > > The BEST people do not need handouts or what I call white collar > welfare. Your FLT solution was trounced as piddle, each and every time you tried to revive it. You "Solution to factoring" is not more efficient than the Sieve of Eratosthenes to form an exhaustive list or trial division of possible factors up to the square root of N. Since these are literally two of the very oldest known algorithms (and worst, in terms of complexity), your "solution" was scooped by well over 2000 years. Modern solutions to this puzzle are far more efficient, but still have an exponential complexity component of some kind. If you understood complexity analysis you would realize that what you propose as a solution is truly laughable. But there is little chance of you cracking open a book to discover what all of that "big-O" stuff means. If (by some miracle) you were to produce a method to factor two huge integers, the world would not fall apart. People would just switch crypto techniques away from methods that rely on factoring being difficult towards other methods that do not use factoring. It would actually be beneficial rather than detrimental in the long run, since solutions to difficult problems often lead to interesting advances. If you ever want to make an actual contribution it really will be necessary for you to read the existing literature. For instanace, if you knew (and understood!) about things like GNFS you would never have made your silly claim. Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, at least had a particular charm. Your responses to honest attempts to help you are vile and vulgar. I expect more of the same in the future.
From: JSH on 9 Nov 2009 20:18 On Nov 9, 4:21 pm, Dann Corbit <dcor...(a)connx.com> wrote: > In article <661918fe-72e2-4b17-8073-ed52b2fdd0d4 > @f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jst...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > > > > I figured out years ago when I FINALLY had major mathematical finds > > that there were these people in the mathematical field who didn't give > > a damn. They didn't care about the truth, so what were they doing > > there? > > > Working it out over the years I've determined that for some people the > > dream of royalty did not die with the transition to democratic > > societies around the world, so they've simply worked to set up shop > > where they can chase that dream. > > > And academia is a place that lets them play at their dreams of being > > royalty. > > > In a class society the king does not have to be the best at anything. > > He is simply the king. > > > So for these people in setting themselves up as wannabe royalty, merit > > does not matter. > > > They don't care if you're right or wrong if you're someone they've de- > > classed in their minds! > > > And you can see how far they can go with what is increasingly looking > > like a solution to the factoring problem. > > > How hard to check? > > > For major researchers, oh, minutes, maybe a few hours to program it > > and watch it go, and then there should be calls to colleagues and > > excited discussion, and oh yeah, notifying of security experts and > > intelligence services around the world. > > > But instead there is a dragging of the feet by people who don't want > > to let go. > > > I mentioned on sci.physics that the world may decide to 0 fund > > academia and I'm increasingly thinking that will happen as the modern > > academic world seems to attract medieval thinking, and in the medieval > > world it was not about truth or merit, but about class. > > > There has to be some way to break that out of academia so that people > > within academic walls do not feel free to dismiss results that they > > don't like. > > > My suggestion is 0 funding. If the money is taken away then only the > > best people will still remain as like me, they will find a way. > > > The BEST people do not need handouts or what I call white collar > > welfare. > > Your FLT solution was trounced as piddle, each and every time you tried > to revive it. Actually I isolated out a key part of the argument, wrote a paper and submitted it to a mathematical journal which published it until some sci.math posters mounted an email campaign against my paper which spooked the editors who withdrew it against my wishes: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html So BY THE RULES that part of the argument was formally peer reviewed and published, though I'd guess you dismiss publication in those circumstances? The journal later keeled over and died, but EMIS keeps its archives up: http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/ They also resurrected my paper though I don't bother linking to it, as I've simplified and advanced the argument. You can simply do a search in Google on: algebraic integer entanglement > You "Solution to factoring" is not more efficient than the Sieve of > Eratosthenes to form an exhaustive list or trial division of possible > factors up to the square root of N. Since these are literally two of <deleted> Then no worries!!! It just AMAZES me how Usenet posters can take the most dramatic things and act like they're nothing. The actual story which you didn't bother to tell is so much more interesting, as, like, an ENTIRE mathematical journal blew up, went up in flames!!! Died. Went six feet under. ENDED ITS EXISTENCE. Isn't that a lot more interesting than what you claimed? Math people are just blocking, and they destroyed one of their own journals as part of that blocking. So I went to the factoring problem. I wonder if there are mathematicians around the world waiting, hoping, wondering if they can still get away with the blocking, even with a way to factor with quadratic residues modulo N. I'm wondering as well. Maybe they can. If so, then in a year I'll just celebrate another belated anniversary of this result. There isn't much hope. If these bastards could destroy a math journal like NOTHING, and it not matter, then what can't they do? James Harris
From: Enrico on 9 Nov 2009 20:48 On Nov 9, 6:18 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 4:21 pm, Dann Corbit <dcor...(a)connx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <661918fe-72e2-4b17-8073-ed52b2fdd0d4 > > @f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jst...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > I figured out years ago when I FINALLY had major mathematical finds > > > that there were these people in the mathematical field who didn't give > > > a damn. They didn't care about the truth, so what were they doing > > > there? > > > > Working it out over the years I've determined that for some people the > > > dream of royalty did not die with the transition to democratic > > > societies around the world, so they've simply worked to set up shop > > > where they can chase that dream. > > > > And academia is a place that lets them play at their dreams of being > > > royalty. > > > > In a class society the king does not have to be the best at anything. > > > He is simply the king. > > > > So for these people in setting themselves up as wannabe royalty, merit > > > does not matter. > > > > They don't care if you're right or wrong if you're someone they've de- > > > classed in their minds! > > > > And you can see how far they can go with what is increasingly looking > > > like a solution to the factoring problem. > > > > How hard to check? > > > > For major researchers, oh, minutes, maybe a few hours to program it > > > and watch it go, and then there should be calls to colleagues and > > > excited discussion, and oh yeah, notifying of security experts and > > > intelligence services around the world. > > > > But instead there is a dragging of the feet by people who don't want > > > to let go. > > > > I mentioned on sci.physics that the world may decide to 0 fund > > > academia and I'm increasingly thinking that will happen as the modern > > > academic world seems to attract medieval thinking, and in the medieval > > > world it was not about truth or merit, but about class. > > > > There has to be some way to break that out of academia so that people > > > within academic walls do not feel free to dismiss results that they > > > don't like. > > > > My suggestion is 0 funding. If the money is taken away then only the > > > best people will still remain as like me, they will find a way. > > > > The BEST people do not need handouts or what I call white collar > > > welfare. > > > Your FLT solution was trounced as piddle, each and every time you tried > > to revive it. > > Actually I isolated out a key part of the argument, wrote a paper and > submitted it to a mathematical journal which published it until some > sci.math posters mounted an email campaign against my paper which > spooked the editors who withdrew it against my wishes:http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html > > So BY THE RULES that part of the argument was formally peer reviewed > and published, though I'd guess you dismiss publication in those > circumstances? > > The journal later keeled over and died, but EMIS keeps its archives > up:http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/ > > They also resurrected my paper though I don't bother linking to it, as > I've simplified and advanced the argument. You can simply do a search > in Google on: algebraic integer entanglement > > > You "Solution to factoring" is not more efficient than the Sieve of > > Eratosthenes to form an exhaustive list or trial division of possible > > factors up to the square root of N. Since these are literally two of > > <deleted> > > Then no worries!!! > > It just AMAZES me how Usenet posters can take the most dramatic things > and act like they're nothing. > > The actual story which you didn't bother to tell is so much more > interesting, as, like, an ENTIRE mathematical journal blew up, went up > in flames!!! Died. Went six feet under. > > ENDED ITS EXISTENCE. > > Isn't that a lot more interesting than what you claimed? > > Math people are just blocking, and they destroyed one of their own > journals as part of that blocking. > > So I went to the factoring problem. > > I wonder if there are mathematicians around the world waiting, hoping, > wondering if they can still get away with the blocking, even with a > way to factor with quadratic residues modulo N. > > I'm wondering as well. Maybe they can. > > If so, then in a year I'll just celebrate another belated anniversary > of this result. > > There isn't much hope. If these bastards could destroy a math journal > like NOTHING, and it not matter, then what can't they do? > > James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ================================================= Getting back to your claim of a very simple way to solve quadratic residues modulo an odd number N, coprime to 3. Can you show how your method works to solve X^2 = 2 mod 161 using the factors of 161 (which are 7 and 23) ? I tried your method and had to use j = 2 and f1 (or f2 ) = 2 to get anything to work - I could find the answers, but they were not linked to both factors of the modulus in the way your blog example shows. Cheat sheet: X = 18 X = 74 X = 87 X = 143 Side note: 18 + 143 = 161 74 + 87 = 161 Enrico
From: JSH on 9 Nov 2009 21:55
On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 6:18 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 4:21 pm, Dann Corbit <dcor...(a)connx.com> wrote: > > > > In article <661918fe-72e2-4b17-8073-ed52b2fdd0d4 > > > @f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jst...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > I figured out years ago when I FINALLY had major mathematical finds > > > > that there were these people in the mathematical field who didn't give > > > > a damn. They didn't care about the truth, so what were they doing > > > > there? > > > > > Working it out over the years I've determined that for some people the > > > > dream of royalty did not die with the transition to democratic > > > > societies around the world, so they've simply worked to set up shop > > > > where they can chase that dream. > > > > > And academia is a place that lets them play at their dreams of being > > > > royalty. > > > > > In a class society the king does not have to be the best at anything. > > > > He is simply the king. > > > > > So for these people in setting themselves up as wannabe royalty, merit > > > > does not matter. > > > > > They don't care if you're right or wrong if you're someone they've de- > > > > classed in their minds! > > > > > And you can see how far they can go with what is increasingly looking > > > > like a solution to the factoring problem. > > > > > How hard to check? > > > > > For major researchers, oh, minutes, maybe a few hours to program it > > > > and watch it go, and then there should be calls to colleagues and > > > > excited discussion, and oh yeah, notifying of security experts and > > > > intelligence services around the world. > > > > > But instead there is a dragging of the feet by people who don't want > > > > to let go. > > > > > I mentioned on sci.physics that the world may decide to 0 fund > > > > academia and I'm increasingly thinking that will happen as the modern > > > > academic world seems to attract medieval thinking, and in the medieval > > > > world it was not about truth or merit, but about class. > > > > > There has to be some way to break that out of academia so that people > > > > within academic walls do not feel free to dismiss results that they > > > > don't like. > > > > > My suggestion is 0 funding. If the money is taken away then only the > > > > best people will still remain as like me, they will find a way. > > > > > The BEST people do not need handouts or what I call white collar > > > > welfare. > > > > Your FLT solution was trounced as piddle, each and every time you tried > > > to revive it. > > > Actually I isolated out a key part of the argument, wrote a paper and > > submitted it to a mathematical journal which published it until some > > sci.math posters mounted an email campaign against my paper which > > spooked the editors who withdrew it against my wishes:http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html > > > So BY THE RULES that part of the argument was formally peer reviewed > > and published, though I'd guess you dismiss publication in those > > circumstances? > > > The journal later keeled over and died, but EMIS keeps its archives > > up:http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/ > > > They also resurrected my paper though I don't bother linking to it, as > > I've simplified and advanced the argument. You can simply do a search > > in Google on: algebraic integer entanglement > > > > You "Solution to factoring" is not more efficient than the Sieve of > > > Eratosthenes to form an exhaustive list or trial division of possible > > > factors up to the square root of N. Since these are literally two of > > > <deleted> > > > Then no worries!!! > > > It just AMAZES me how Usenet posters can take the most dramatic things > > and act like they're nothing. > > > The actual story which you didn't bother to tell is so much more > > interesting, as, like, an ENTIRE mathematical journal blew up, went up > > in flames!!! Died. Went six feet under. > > > ENDED ITS EXISTENCE. > > > Isn't that a lot more interesting than what you claimed? > > > Math people are just blocking, and they destroyed one of their own > > journals as part of that blocking. > > > So I went to the factoring problem. > > > I wonder if there are mathematicians around the world waiting, hoping, > > wondering if they can still get away with the blocking, even with a > > way to factor with quadratic residues modulo N. > > > I'm wondering as well. Maybe they can. > > > If so, then in a year I'll just celebrate another belated anniversary > > of this result. > > > There isn't much hope. If these bastards could destroy a math journal > > like NOTHING, and it not matter, then what can't they do? > > > James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ================================================= > > Getting back to your claim of a very simple way to solve quadratic > residues modulo an odd number N, coprime to 3. > > Can you show how your method works to solve X^2 = 2 mod 161 > using the factors of 161 (which are 7 and 23) ? > > I tried your method and had to use j = 2 and f1 (or f2 ) = 2 to > get anything to work - I could find the answers, but they were > not linked to both factors of the modulus in the way your > blog example shows. Good one! Yuck I'm having problems with it myself. Well THAT is why I put these things out on Usenet, just in case someone can find a problem before I call in the cavalry. I'll keep working at this one to see if I can get it to work. James Harris |