JSH: Posting realities, residues result
in [Math]
|
From: Pol Lux on 11 Jun 2010 22:32 On Jun 11, 7:13 am, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I've been fascinated by the response to my posting of a general result > for solving quadratic residues because of the elephant in the room NOT > mentioned, which is that it is mod N, whereas mathematicians usually > MUST use mod p, where p is a prime. Mathematicians are so stupid. > And in all the discussion that erupted around my postings on this > result you may have noticed I noted that the approach tends to prefer > large k, though all the details of how that works out are not clear > even to me. _even_ to you? God hasn't figured out all the details yet? > So it's a way to deliberately probe for factors of N, picking k_1 in > order to try and get k_2, which is a technique not available with any > other known method, because no other general way to solve for residues > is known! Phew. I think you saved humanity right there. Thank you. > So why would posters argue endlessly with me on other subjects and > miss this amazing thing that the approach is mod N and not mod p? > Because they hate me. Also they want me to be wrong!!! No matter > what as it's personal with them. They are so stupid. And they hate you, of course. > Mathematics is a sideline to their actual activity. It doesn't rank > in importance to what they really want. But God knows what they want, right? > Human beings are quirky creatures. They can do the damndest things. > So if you're a Usenet poster arguing with people on Usenet the LAST > THING you wish for a target to be, is actually right! I'm amazed by the quirkiness of God (you) too. > I'll give the result again, and note that it's trivially derived > though I won't give the derivation again. I'll also note that the > result is basic research so it's not clear how hard it is to get it to > work at any level. The devil is in the details. Please keep the result. No need to reiterate. Thank you. > For instance with nuclear weapons it's a far cry from knowing you just > have to slap some plutonium together to actually building a working > nuclear weapon. So I heard. I tried myself in my backyard, but I wouldn't recommend it. > Now then, back to national security! It IS quite possible that this > information could be of interest to governments, oh, all over the > world. Failure to disclose of it for some of you could be seen as a > LACK OF LOYALTY in your respective countries. Yes, national security is a most pressing subject. But not to worry, you are going to save us, right? > Usenet posters who reply decrying the result could face extraordinary > scrutiny in the near future if only from the world press wondering how > they could do such a thing. And could find themselves labeled for > life. Is that a threat? A prediction? I guess God is omniscient, so you surely know what is going to happen in the future. > Post in reply now with care. No matter how little you think of > Usenet, you can make a decision in this thread which you can't take > back, which will end the life you knew, and move you into a Hell on > earth that you will not escape until you die. Truly spoken like God. A somewhat vengeful God, but hey, that's His prerogative. <snip> Oh no! The result again! Maybe we should enshrine it as the New Gospel. > It's a general result, which may have been known to Gauss and simply > didn't get written down, or maybe he did and no one noticed. It's not > the sort of thing that had the importance in the past that it MAY have > in our modern age of computers and systems based on factoring as a > hard problem. But to Gauss only. How strange. > It is a general result at the heart of modular arithmetic. No one can > really say for sure how big it actually may be as general results have > that quality. Kind of like differentiation with the calculus. How > big is that? Has humanity determined its limits yet? I think this one is way, way bigger than the advent of differentiation and calculus. Did you notify the Nobel committee already? I mean, you should, I heard they don't always read sci.math carefully. Or maybe you should contact the head of the United Nations directly. I think a Nobel prize is too insignificant for you. It's too bad there is no supra-national entity larger than the United Nations to recognize you as the new Messiah of Mathematics and Savior of Humanity. > James Harris You don't need to be modest, you can sign God. (is this guy for real? it's kind of fun)
From: Pol Lux on 11 Jun 2010 22:34 > And again, notice, absolute proof useless with a supposedly > mathematical crowd because some posters have decided that mathematics > isn't good enough for them--when it's mine. Err... Maths is not anybody's. Certainly not yours.
From: Pol Lux on 11 Jun 2010 22:36 On Jun 11, 5:58 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 5:23 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > > > On 06/11/2010 07:44 PM, JSH wrote: > > > > What's weird to me when I do mathematical refutations is how often > > > they are just ignored! > > > To paraphrase Dijkstra, examples do not prove a theorem; they can merely > > disprove one. > > You can't disprove a theorem. I guess not when it's brought to existence by God himself (I mean, JSH).
From: Joshua Cranmer on 11 Jun 2010 22:38 On 06/11/2010 08:58 PM, JSH wrote: > On Jun 11, 5:23 pm, Joshua Cranmer<Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: >> On 06/11/2010 07:44 PM, JSH wrote: >> >>> What's weird to me when I do mathematical refutations is how often >>> they are just ignored! >> >> To paraphrase Dijkstra, examples do not prove a theorem; they can merely >> disprove one. > > You can't disprove a theorem. I'm using the term "theorem" here as a shorthand for "a claim which is purported to be true." In this case, you claim to have a theorem, but you can't use examples as the proof of this claim; you can only use them to find a disproof of it. "Proof" by failure to find a counterexample is not proof. > I'll post the example again--which tellingly you deleted out--to > correct a mistake I made in a prior post. I deleted it because it does nothing towards proving your claim. I'll repeat: Please show me the logical steps in your proof that your algorithm is not random, per either of the definitions of "random" that I gave. If you cannot show me that, then, by your own admission, you do not have a proof, and therefore I have reason to refuse to acknowledge it. > Freaking thing will always exist rapidly as anyone who plays with the > program will notice, so they already know you're an idiot if they > have. There was a problem, I recall, in number theory where the first counter example found occurred at something well beyond the range of normally countable numbers (10^10^22 or something). > But usually it just gives you back: k = floor(N/2) + 1. I've posted > about this before. So usually, it's a useless answer. > Clearly you don't read my posts carefully, but no worries. I usually > just skim yours too. Clearly. You still haven't presented anything that you would, by your own definition, consider a proof. So I have grounds to assume that it's wrong. > Oh, eventually dude you could get a visit from security forces in your > country to interview you! > > Now isn't the anticipation of such an intriguing event exciting? Already been interviewed by them. Wasn't such a bad thing. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Pol Lux on 11 Jun 2010 22:46
On Jun 11, 7:38 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 06/11/2010 08:58 PM, JSH wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 5:23 pm, Joshua Cranmer<Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > >> On 06/11/2010 07:44 PM, JSH wrote: > > >>> What's weird to me when I do mathematical refutations is how often > >>> they are just ignored! > > >> To paraphrase Dijkstra, examples do not prove a theorem; they can merely > >> disprove one. > > > You can't disprove a theorem. > > I'm using the term "theorem" here as a shorthand for "a claim which is > purported to be true." In this case, you claim to have a theorem, but > you can't use examples as the proof of this claim; you can only use them > to find a disproof of it. "Proof" by failure to find a counterexample is > not proof. > > > I'll post the example again--which tellingly you deleted out--to > > correct a mistake I made in a prior post. > > I deleted it because it does nothing towards proving your claim. I'll > repeat: > Please show me the logical steps in your proof that your algorithm is > not random, per either of the definitions of "random" that I gave. If > you cannot show me that, then, by your own admission, you do not have a > proof, and therefore I have reason to refuse to acknowledge it. > > > Freaking thing will always exist rapidly as anyone who plays with the > > program will notice, so they already know you're an idiot if they > > have. > > There was a problem, I recall, in number theory where the first counter > example found occurred at something well beyond the range of normally > countable numbers (10^10^22 or something). > > > But usually it just gives you back: k = floor(N/2) + 1. I've posted > > about this before. > > So usually, it's a useless answer. > > > Clearly you don't read my posts carefully, but no worries. I usually > > just skim yours too. > > Clearly. You still haven't presented anything that you would, by your > own definition, consider a proof. So I have grounds to assume that it's > wrong. > > > Oh, eventually dude you could get a visit from security forces in your > > country to interview you! > > > Now isn't the anticipation of such an intriguing event exciting? > > Already been interviewed by them. Wasn't such a bad thing. Can I also get interviewed by the Security Forces? Please? Pretty please? Do I just have to continue reading this thread? |