JSH: Importance of knowledge
in [Math]
|
Prev: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: [Combinatorics] Ball choosing problem
From: Ostap Bender on 7 Jun 2010 02:46 On Jun 6, 6:26 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 5:54 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 8:37 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 3:46 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I want to emphasize to all of you that the issue is one of a potential > > > > >technological shift. > > > > > >If you know your history you should know the importance of technology, > > > > >from the military tactics of the Roman legions, to the sailing ships > > > > >of Europeans, and the computers of our modern age, the civilizations > > > > >with the technological edge, win. > > > > > >If a country like North Korea or Iran gets through the door on a major > > > > >exploit then you can wake up in a world where technology has shifted > > > > >in a way you cannot foresee, > > > > > >But the future you may live to witness may be one where the dominant > > > > >country is one you would say can't be dominate that fast, or ever, > > > > >today. > > > > > >Also on the darker side what you cannot imagine now can be very clear > > > > >to people later evaluating behaviors around this result. It is not > > > > >fun and games if you're facing some people in your home country and > > > > >they're asking you why you did not do what they would have expected. > > > > > >Depending on the country what you say then, or what you can say, may > > > > >mean life or death for you. > > > > > >So some readers around the world are now in a more delicate position > > > > >for that reason alone, regardless of anything else. > > > > > >Because in your country, doing nothing may be seen as a failed test of > > > > >loyalty. A betrayal of your state. A failure to your country and its > > > > >leaders. > > > > > >James Harris > > > > > Welcome back James. I hope you enjoyed your self-imposed exile from > > > > sci.math. I look forward to your latest mathematical musings. > > > > Usenet gives me more information than I get from other sources and > > > does so rapidly, so I found I still needed to use it. I've already > > > received interesting, if not valuable feedback now. > > > > Trouble is, without you people I'm mostly left debating with myself > > > about what's going on, and some of you actually are fairly decent at > > > finding what was previously known, and you know the process fairly > > > well for how papers move through math society. > > > > So I made the hard decision. It was the logical one given the > > > circumstances. > > > > > Have you had anything back yet from the Annals of Mathematics on the > > > > paper you sent them about residues? > > > > > rossum > > > > I'm replying because of that important question. Yes, they > > > acknowledged receipt the next day. > > > > I hope they don't mind me giving a copy of their reply. I guess it's > > > not like most of you would ever see one of these in your lifetimes > > > unless a wannabe author shows you (oh, I think I did years ago anyway > > > with a previous submission which was ultimately rejected), and why > > > would any of the major figures who usually submit to them, do so? So > > > I apologize to the Annals upfront, but it's not like there's a lot in > > > the reply, and I'll redact the name of the staffer who sent it. > > > > Here's a copy of their reply (contact redacted): > > > > <quote> > > > Dear Dr. Harris, > > > > We have received your submission, "Solving residues" as well as test > > > program and have forwarded them to the appropriate editor. > > > > We will contact you when we have any further information concerning > > > your paper. > > > > Thank you for your submission. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > *** **** > > > Annals staff > > > </quote> > > > > So things may be going ok. Hey, maybe I'm jumping the gun babbling > > > about this on Usenet as if things aren't! > > > > But it's been over two weeks. How long should it take with a trivial > > > to derive result, in such a big area as modular arithmetic, which > > > might have implications for integer factorization? > > > The way it usually works is that several weeks or months after > > receiving your submitted paper, somebody will look at it long enough > > to see what filed of study it's in, and then assign 3 or 4 experts to > > read it. They are asked to do this in several months, but they are > > often busy. Thus, it takes many months or even years for the initial > > reviews to come back. And often, the answer is not "yes" or "no", but > > "maybe", depending on problems and questions the reviewers raise. > > Thus, it will take a second iteration. > > That's with a normal result. > > Hopefully you are correct along with Mark Murray in claiming that I've > given a previously well-known result, as otherwise if it is a miss at > the heart of modular arithmetic then there are national security > implications. Math journal reviewers are usually professors who don't work for national security agencies. In fact, your reviewers are most likely not to be American citizens. They can be Chinese or Indians or Russians or French. Thus, the time that they will take in reviewing your paper will be determined by how busy they and their grad students are. > Then a false statement in this context could be a big deal. If you think that your work is important to the US national security, contact the NSA, CIA and the FBI. Make sure to treat them the way you treat your sci.math readers. They'll appreciate it. > I know many of you are so used to making outlandish statements and > hearing threats of serious repercussions that the concept of national > security people actually interested in what you said seems ludicrous. You are strongly advised to contact NSA, CIA and the FBI immediately. Contacting local university medical schools and hospitals may be an other venue for you to consider. > Arguing about it is useless, however. You got it. Good luck! > Besides, if you and Mark Murray are correct then sci.math has already > made itself useful to me. Then you are welcome. Actually, it is Mark who gave you the reference. > It doesn't matter to me if you find facts that dismiss the value of > this result! And to be honest, it doesn't matter to ME one bit if you dismiss my and Mark's advice. > That's actually better, for world security. And your security as > well, as well as that of your nation, wherever you may be. Well, if your algorithm ever turned out to be a fast way of breaking cryptographic codes, then that would mean that USA's enemies will be able to break American codes. And this would be bad for our security. So, if you value American national security, you should hope that your algorithm turns out to be useless. > I tweak you all for a purpose. Sometimes getting you motivated takes > creativity. But if you've answered the question correctly, then all > is well. Well, for the sake of US security I too hope that your results will be useless to America's enemies.
From: Mark Murray on 7 Jun 2010 04:09 On 07/06/2010 07:46, Ostap Bender wrote: >> Besides, if you and Mark Murray are correct then sci.math has already >> made itself useful to me. > > Then you are welcome. Actually, it is Mark who gave you the > reference. Thanks! But note that _Usenet_ has made itself useful to James. _I_ am a "stalker" who "pushes all his buttons". >> It doesn't matter to me if you find facts that dismiss the value of >> this result! > > And to be honest, it doesn't matter to ME one bit if you dismiss my > and Mark's advice. Note James' fury to my rebuttal of his work? It mattered to him a very great deal. >> That's actually better, for world security. And your security as >> well, as well as that of your nation, wherever you may be. > > Well, if your algorithm ever turned out to be a fast way of breaking > cryptographic codes, then that would mean that USA's enemies will be > able to break American codes. And this would be bad for our security. > So, if you value American national security, you should hope that your > algorithm turns out to be useless. Wouldn't that make James a treasonous traitor if he did break the NSA cryptosystems? He claims to have worried about this before, but usually only when it became obvious that his outrageous claims were unviable. >> I tweak you all for a purpose. Sometimes getting you motivated takes >> creativity. But if you've answered the question correctly, then all >> is well. > > Well, for the sake of US security I too hope that your results will be > useless to America's enemies. So does James, repeatedly, and with hollowness that would be funny if the irony were better written. He claims that fame and celebrityhood are undesirable, to the extent that he obsesses about these. Note his continued implied comparison with himself and the likes of Tesla, Euler, Newton etc. Note his unquestionable faith in himself as a discoverer. Note his enthusiatic denouncements of others' opinions in "his" threads while banging the "free speach" drum. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 7 Jun 2010 08:39 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: > Some posters have claimed that's well-known. If so, then all is well. > > But if not then a fundamental equation of modular arithmetic was > previously just inexplicably missed. > > That opens the door of the unknown. > > So say, some hostile nation finds this out, while the US and Britain > sit on their hands because top mathematicians just, oh, don't feel > like mentioning the result! > > That nation gets a lot of its mathematicians together and puts them on > a fast-paced secret program to exploit the information. > > It takes them a few months but they succeed and get a bonus! > > Learning how to crack RSA--maybe trivial to them by then--they figure > out ways to crack all the other systems as well. > > Months of effort pay off as that nation hacks into computers in the US > and Britain and all over the world, downloads top secret information > from all levels, including nuclear launch codes. This *is* a scary and very believable scenario! If only we hadn't put those darn launch codes on the internet. What were we thinking? -- "What if [...] these people HATE mathematics itself, but possibly hang out here to prove to themselves that there's nothing really to it and live in the fantasy that they can conquer mathematics itself? You know, like arsonists who become firefighters." --James S Harris
From: JSH on 7 Jun 2010 10:15 On Jun 7, 1:09 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 07/06/2010 07:46, Ostap Bender wrote: > > >> Besides, if you and Mark Murray are correct then sci.math has already > >> made itself useful to me. > > > Then you are welcome. Actually, it is Mark who gave you the > > reference. > > Thanks! But note that _Usenet_ has made itself useful to James. _I_ > am a "stalker" who "pushes all his buttons". > > >> It doesn't matter to me if you find facts that dismiss the value of > >> this result! > > > And to be honest, it doesn't matter to ME one bit if you dismiss my > > and Mark's advice. > > Note James' fury to my rebuttal of his work? It mattered to him a > very great deal. Not really. I'm pushing hard behind this latest result across a LOT of formats, my math blog, my computer programming blog, as well as my math group and on Scribd. It'd hurt worse for it to be a known result and I'd just have egg on my face, again. And I be yanking it down across ALL those formats. Right now a lot of hits from over 40 countries are being directed to this result. That is, a lot of the world is being so directed. So no, I'm not furious at you--if you're right! So we wait. Will ANYONE else agree with Mark Murray that my method for finding k, when k^m = q mod N, is in the book he claims? I'd really hate to buy that book, wait on it expectantly, and find I was dealing with more lies from a Usenet posters, as that's, um, so trite. Usenet posters lie all the time. I've got a LOT behind this result at this point. Oh yeah! And a submission to the Annals. If Mark Murry is correct then at least I can email them to withdraw the paper!!! So I need a secondary verification here. I'm hesitant to act on the word of a stalker of mine. Your stalkers aren't often the most reliable people, you know? James Harris
From: JSH on 7 Jun 2010 10:18
On Jun 6, 11:46 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 6:26 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:54 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 8:37 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 3:46 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT), JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >I want to emphasize to all of you that the issue is one of a potential > > > > > >technological shift. > > > > > > >If you know your history you should know the importance of technology, > > > > > >from the military tactics of the Roman legions, to the sailing ships > > > > > >of Europeans, and the computers of our modern age, the civilizations > > > > > >with the technological edge, win. > > > > > > >If a country like North Korea or Iran gets through the door on a major > > > > > >exploit then you can wake up in a world where technology has shifted > > > > > >in a way you cannot foresee, > > > > > > >But the future you may live to witness may be one where the dominant > > > > > >country is one you would say can't be dominate that fast, or ever, > > > > > >today. > > > > > > >Also on the darker side what you cannot imagine now can be very clear > > > > > >to people later evaluating behaviors around this result. It is not > > > > > >fun and games if you're facing some people in your home country and > > > > > >they're asking you why you did not do what they would have expected. > > > > > > >Depending on the country what you say then, or what you can say, may > > > > > >mean life or death for you. > > > > > > >So some readers around the world are now in a more delicate position > > > > > >for that reason alone, regardless of anything else. > > > > > > >Because in your country, doing nothing may be seen as a failed test of > > > > > >loyalty. A betrayal of your state. A failure to your country and its > > > > > >leaders. > > > > > > >James Harris > > > > > > Welcome back James. I hope you enjoyed your self-imposed exile from > > > > > sci.math. I look forward to your latest mathematical musings. > > > > > Usenet gives me more information than I get from other sources and > > > > does so rapidly, so I found I still needed to use it. I've already > > > > received interesting, if not valuable feedback now. > > > > > Trouble is, without you people I'm mostly left debating with myself > > > > about what's going on, and some of you actually are fairly decent at > > > > finding what was previously known, and you know the process fairly > > > > well for how papers move through math society. > > > > > So I made the hard decision. It was the logical one given the > > > > circumstances. > > > > > > Have you had anything back yet from the Annals of Mathematics on the > > > > > paper you sent them about residues? > > > > > > rossum > > > > > I'm replying because of that important question. Yes, they > > > > acknowledged receipt the next day. > > > > > I hope they don't mind me giving a copy of their reply. I guess it's > > > > not like most of you would ever see one of these in your lifetimes > > > > unless a wannabe author shows you (oh, I think I did years ago anyway > > > > with a previous submission which was ultimately rejected), and why > > > > would any of the major figures who usually submit to them, do so? So > > > > I apologize to the Annals upfront, but it's not like there's a lot in > > > > the reply, and I'll redact the name of the staffer who sent it. > > > > > Here's a copy of their reply (contact redacted): > > > > > <quote> > > > > Dear Dr. Harris, > > > > > We have received your submission, "Solving residues" as well as test > > > > program and have forwarded them to the appropriate editor. > > > > > We will contact you when we have any further information concerning > > > > your paper. > > > > > Thank you for your submission. > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > *** **** > > > > Annals staff > > > > </quote> > > > > > So things may be going ok. Hey, maybe I'm jumping the gun babbling > > > > about this on Usenet as if things aren't! > > > > > But it's been over two weeks. How long should it take with a trivial > > > > to derive result, in such a big area as modular arithmetic, which > > > > might have implications for integer factorization? > > > > The way it usually works is that several weeks or months after > > > receiving your submitted paper, somebody will look at it long enough > > > to see what filed of study it's in, and then assign 3 or 4 experts to > > > read it. They are asked to do this in several months, but they are > > > often busy. Thus, it takes many months or even years for the initial > > > reviews to come back. And often, the answer is not "yes" or "no", but > > > "maybe", depending on problems and questions the reviewers raise. > > > Thus, it will take a second iteration. > > > That's with a normal result. > > > Hopefully you are correct along with Mark Murray in claiming that I've > > given a previously well-known result, as otherwise if it is a miss at > > the heart of modular arithmetic then there are national security > > implications. > > Math journal reviewers are usually professors who don't work for > national security agencies. In fact, your reviewers are most likely > not to be American citizens. They can be Chinese or Indians or > Russians or French. Thus, the time that they will take in reviewing > your paper will be determined by how busy they and their grad students > are. > > > Then a false statement in this context could be a big deal. > > If you think that your work is important to the US national security, > contact the NSA, CIA and the FBI. Make sure to treat them the way you > treat your sci.math readers. They'll appreciate it. > > > I know many of you are so used to making outlandish statements and > > hearing threats of serious repercussions that the concept of national > > security people actually interested in what you said seems ludicrous. > > You are strongly advised to contact NSA, CIA and the FBI immediately. > Contacting local university medical schools and hospitals may be an > other venue for you to consider. Have you ever TRIED to contact the NSA or CIA? Best I managed with the NSA was their public affairs office. And I've yet to see a way to contact the CIA. The FBI is easier but they're not math people. I've yet to get a reply from them on anything math related. It's DAMN hard to contact the NSA or CIA about anything. Not a trivial exercise for an American citizen. If you (or anyone else) have a contact, please give it. If you can't give it out on Usenet, then feel free to email it to me, which you should be able to do by replying to this post by email. I am serious here. This situation is not a game. James Harris |