Prev: Solving discrete logarithms
Next: JSH: World of insecurity?
From: JSH on 29 Jun 2010 19:33
Looks like I might have solved the discrete log problem, as well as
just generally handled k^m = q mod N, using some simple congruence
relations--not a big deal if you know my other mathematical results.
But I've talked about those other results for YEARS and been ignored
by mainstream mathematicians while getting in idiot arguments on
Usenet, which are distinctive for the rain of insult that are sent my
way.

To understand the why of the lying consider even this latest result.
I may have shown that something thought hard by SOME people, really
wasn't all that hard if you knew what you were doing. And that is the
problem. The part about knowing what you are doing.

What if they worry that the world will decide that they don't?

Their solution? Pretend my math does not exist. Or, on Usenet,
insult me, deride it, and act as if talking something down proves it
is wrong.

What I like about the discrete log problem is that it SUPPOSEDLY is a
big deal. But I feel confident that an odd thing will happen at least
for a while--suddenly it won't be so hot any more. Math people will
kind of just start behaving like it does not exist, like I think they
did with the Riemann Hypothesis.

SURE, if you bring it UP, they will claim that it's a major big deal,
but how much research news have you heard about it LATELY?

I consider a possibility where YEARS go by, and people just kind of
quietly stop talking about discrete logs, as if nothing is going on,
and nothing happened!

So no, not holding my breath with this my latest major research
result. I've got lots of them. Kind of getting bored finding them.

I've got lots of these damn things kind of just lying around. World
does not care.

Major mathematical research results don't have value in this world.
It's what people SAY has value that does. Real researchers need not
worry about what the world will think, as the stupid world does NOT
think.


James Harris
From: Gordon Burditt on 29 Jun 2010 23:36
>Looks like I might have solved the discrete log problem, as well as
>just generally handled k^m = q mod N, using some simple congruence
>relations--not a big deal if you know my other mathematical results.

You mean the world's slowest method of factoring? And you still haven't
factored 15 with it yet.

>But I've talked about those other results for YEARS and been ignored
>by mainstream mathematicians while getting in idiot arguments on
>Usenet, which are distinctive for the rain of insult that are sent my
>way.

Mainstream mathematicians cannot possibly read even the titles of
all the papers written about math, especially not all the fifth-grade
math homework and test papers turned in. If they want to spend
their time reading *good* math, they look for people with more
credentials than having gotten a D- in fifth-grade math. Considering
the number of errors in what you post, that lets you out.

>To understand the why of the lying consider even this latest result.

What lying? Ignoring you is not lying. Insulting people on Usenet
is also not lying. And everyone posting on Usenet gets insulted
eventually, if not frequently. Not reading your error-ridden stuff
which you refuse to actually check before posting is not a lie.
It's simply good time management.

>I may have shown that something thought hard by SOME people, really
>wasn't all that hard if you knew what you were doing. And that is the
>problem. The part about knowing what you are doing.
>
>What if they worry that the world will decide that they don't?
>
>Their solution? Pretend my math does not exist. Or, on Usenet,
>insult me, deride it, and act as if talking something down proves it
>is wrong.

Your own repeated errors prove that there is a fair probability
that *ANYTHING* you post has an error (if not an infinity of errors)
in it. Therefore it is a waste of time for real mathematicians to
read it.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Solving discrete logarithms
Next: JSH: World of insecurity?