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: JSH on 6 Jun 2010 11:37 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? Those aren't rhetorical questions. Here is where Usenet has value to me, even if I get a lot of garbage replies. Otherwise I simply have my own musing to ruminate over, where I end up just going in circles after a while. James Harris
From: Joshua Cranmer on 6 Jun 2010 14:55 On 06/06/2010 11:37 AM, JSH wrote: > 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? It depends on a number of factors. I edited my sister's thesis for about an hour before I gave up (after page 1: the introduction was completely abysmal). That was pretty much purely fixing spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes, as well as trying to come up with suggestions for better organization of the introduction; as I am not a geologist, I couldn't give any commentary of the results for accuracy as your editor/reviewer surely would. Keep in mind that peer reviewers are probably looking at multiple papers, so there may be a backlog. To a degree, the more important results probably induce more scrutiny since a mistake becomes more embarrassing. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: JSH on 6 Jun 2010 16:13 On Jun 6, 11:55 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 06/06/2010 11:37 AM, JSH wrote: > > > 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? > > It depends on a number of factors. I edited my sister's thesis for about > an hour before I gave up (after page 1: the introduction was completely > abysmal). That was pretty much purely fixing spelling, punctuation, and > grammar mistakes, as well as trying to come up with suggestions for > better organization of the introduction; as I am not a geologist, I > couldn't give any commentary of the results for accuracy as your > editor/reviewer surely would. > > Keep in mind that peer reviewers are probably looking at multiple > papers, so there may be a backlog. To a degree, the more important > results probably induce more scrutiny since a mistake becomes more > embarrassing. There are possibly national security implications with a fundamental result in modular arithmetic that involves factoring. It raises the issue of the big unknown. And national security people not only hate the "big unknown" they like to be informed of such things rapidly. Kind of beats your sister's thesis. If you think the national security implications are just deluded ranting, your opinion in this case will not necessarily save your butt later. What you don't know doesn't have to like you. James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 6 Jun 2010 17:10 On 06/06/2010 21:13, JSH wrote: > There are possibly national security implications with a fundamental > result in modular arithmetic that involves factoring. It raises the > issue of the big unknown. And national security people not only hate > the "big unknown" they like to be informed of such things rapidly. " ... possibly ... " > Kind of beats your sister's thesis. I'll believe that Joshua's sister's thesis exists WELL before I entertain the notion that your wild guesswork has any relevance to anything other than your own ego. > If you think the national security implications are just deluded > ranting, your opinion in this case will not necessarily save your butt > later. "If". If I was a Plutonium smuggler, major govermnents would be on my case. But I'm not, any more than your deluded ranting has any more interest value than humour. > What you don't know doesn't have to like you. WOW. Deep, James, Deep. Not ready for a T-shirt though[*]. Keep at it. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist. [*] Readers of JSH's Twitter feed may recognise the reference to James' more desperate excuses for "nutty tweets" as attemtps to generate "good" T-shirt slogans.
From: JSH on 6 Jun 2010 17:34
On Jun 6, 2:10 pm, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 06/06/2010 21:13, JSH wrote: > > > There are possibly national security implications with a fundamental > > result in modular arithmetic that involves factoring. It raises the > > issue of the big unknown. And national security people not only hate > > the "big unknown" they like to be informed of such things rapidly. > > " ... possibly ... " > > > Kind of beats your sister's thesis. > > I'll believe that Joshua's sister's thesis exists WELL before I > entertain the notion that your wild guesswork has any relevance > to anything other than your own ego. Ok, as stock markets continue to reel around the world investors can take comfort in your opinion. Looks like Monday will be a melt-down in the US. And when Britain is broken I want her to go look at one of her soon to be more famous citizens and I will feel no pity. You Brits can be monstrously annoying. You deserve whatever you get. James Harris |