Prev: JSH: World should be ok, from stupidity
Next: Merry Christmas 8
From: JSH on 8 Nov 2009 13:20
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.

So 0 funding academia is increasingly looking like the way to go, as
this latest incredible example shows: you people are fighting powerful
mathematics as if you can win!

But why would you even want to win?


James Harris
From: Bruce Stephens on 8 Nov 2009 13:39
JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> 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.

Anybody attempting to "program it and watch it go" will need to post
their attempt, wait for you to insult their deliberate attempts at
misunderstanding you, then add in whatever corrections you suggest and
try again. People over the years have tried and so far nobody's found a
working factoring solution (none have been fast enough, and many failed
to find factors (and did so slowly)). That process tends to take a
couple of weeks, not minutes or hours.

[...]

From: JSH on 8 Nov 2009 14:08
On Nov 8, 10:39 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...(a)cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > 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.
>
> Anybody attempting to "program it and watch it go" will need to post
> their attempt, wait for you to insult their deliberate attempts at
> misunderstanding you, then add in whatever corrections you suggest and
> try again.  People over the years have tried and so far nobody's found a
> working factoring solution (none have been fast enough, and many failed
> to find factors (and did so slowly)).  That process tends to take a
> couple of weeks, not minutes or hours.

You're describing basic research. In getting to the latest results I
had LOTS of missteps and failures.

But you have to think people are complete idiots to believe you don't
get a technique that involves solving for k, with

k^2 = q mod N

by factoring

2q + jN

with j a nonzero integer, into f_1 and f_2, and finding k from: k = 3^
{-1}(f_1 + f_2)

with about a 50% probability of success, and certainty if 2q - f_1^2
is a quadratic residue modulo N.

That is a HIGHLY specific result and looks like something that might
come from years of basic research, with lots of failures and missteps.

If your post is your defense before say, a senate committee? They
will shred you apart.

ANY ethical researcher in the field given indication that the above
works would have no choice about what he or she should do next, but
should not have to be prodded anyway!

They should leap to do the right thing which is inform.

You have a duty to inform.

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.


James Harris
From: JSH on 8 Nov 2009 15:24
On Nov 8, 11:08 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:39 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...(a)cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Anybody attempting to "program it and watch it go" will need to post
> > their attempt, wait for you to insult their deliberate attempts at
> > misunderstanding you, then add in whatever corrections you suggest and
> > try again.  People over the years have tried and so far nobody's found a
> > working factoring solution (none have been fast enough, and many failed
> > to find factors (and did so slowly)).  That process tends to take a
> > couple of weeks, not minutes or hours.
>
> You're describing basic research.  In getting to the latest results I
> had LOTS of missteps and failures.
>
> But you have to think people are complete idiots to believe you don't
> get a technique that involves solving for k, with
>
> k^2 = q mod N
>
> by factoring
>
> 2q + jN
>
> with j a nonzero integer, into f_1 and f_2, and finding k from: k = 3^
> {-1}(f_1 + f_2)

That should be k = 3^{-1)(f_1 + f_2) mod N. Forgot the "mod N" part.

Don't want to give people any excuses.

> with about a 50% probability of success, and certainty if 2q - f_1^2
> is a quadratic residue modulo N.

It IS wonderful mathematics and I give one relation where the algebra
offers an infinity of them.

Maybe part of what distresses me is this refusal to be interested in
wonderful mathematical results that show these surprisingly simple yet
powerful relations between numbers.

I cannot imagine real researchers behaving in such a way, so I
conclude you are fakes.

I mean, to live through history being made! To not just be in a
position to read about great discoveries from the "shoulders of
giants" like Archimedes or Newton or Riemann, but to be LIVING it, and
to drag your feet and dawdle and whine means to me you are not
researchers at all.

You're pretenders. Wannabe's. Fakes.


James Harris
From: JSH on 8 Nov 2009 20:22
On Nov 8, 3:15 pm, gordonb.hu...(a)burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >> > And you can see how far they can go with what is increasingly looking
> >> > like a solution to the factoring problem.
>
> It's not a solution to the factoring problem if it's not fast.
> Where's your complexity analysis?  What moderate-sized numbers
> (numbers you cannot factor in your head) have you factored with it?
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Isn't that the responsibility of the person claiming to make the
> discovery?

No. I think academics may think that but most people believe that if
you see something really important then YOU have a duty to inform if
you are an expert in that field, while I see this weird attitude from
academics that it is the duty of someone else to convince you.

But if you are an expert and get shown a simple way to find quadratic
residues modulo N the simple HUMAN CURIOSITY should move you, if there
is any way it is correct as that is a novel thing.

Like say the discussion was over birdwatching, and I noted a beautiful
rare bird, and you ranted back at me that I needed photos in
triplicate, with a paper, and signed affidavits from several other
people who saw the bird, oh, and I needed to get published and only
THEN might you, a supposed bird watching pro, even care to CONSIDER
that MAYBE I might have something interesting.

People won't buy that, and they won't buy that experts couldn't see a
simple and important mathematical result from an amateur, and claims
that I should fight this huge fight by writing papers and trying to
convince journals is just academic insanity and more reason to reform
the current system.

After all, what did people do before journals and papers? Or do you
labor under the assumption these always existed?

Here is the result again. Beautiful simple mathematics--a rare bird:

To solve a quadratic residue q modulo N, where N is an odd composite,
that is, find k, where k^2 = q mod N, remarkably you can use factors
f_1 and f_2 of

2q + jN

where j is a non-zero integer, and f_1*f_2 = 2q + jN, in the relation:

k = 3^{-1}(f_1 + f_2) mod N

which will work roughly 50% of the time, and it will always work if 2q
- f_1^2 is a quadratic residue modulo N.

That is an incredible result from elementary number theory showing an
impressively easy way to solve for quadratic residues modulo N.

So if a real bird aficionado sees a beautiful rare bird does he need
the person who provides a photo to write a paper, submit to a journal
and CONVINCE a large academic audience?

No.


James Harris
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: JSH: World should be ok, from stupidity
Next: Merry Christmas 8