JSH: Fighting mathematical research

jstevh@msn.com · science forum Guru Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 951

So yeah, I finally after some time came up with yet another brilliant
mathematical research idea.

This time, I used the sign ambiguity of the square root function to
figure out an approach that should be a way to a REAL factoring method,
as in one that shows that factoring can be done trivially, at any size
number.

So enter sci.math regulars who argue with me all the time.

Not surprisingly, they hack at the idea, and do some things that don't
work well.

People like that are not people who are good for civilization.

After all, our civilization works when people are actually trying to
figure things out and solve problems versus win in ego battles against
some guy they hate.

Using something like

S = (k_1*sqrt(x) + k_2*sqrt(y))*(k_3*sqrt(x) + k_4*sqrt(y))

is just brilliant, as with S being a surrogate and NOT the number
you're trying to factor, you get these other factorizations pulled in,
that come in by considering the square roots with different signs.

For instance, if S = g_1 * g_2, and you have

k_1*sqrt(x) + k_2*sqrt(y) = g_1

k_3*sqrt(x) + k_4*sqrt(y) = g_2

then, of course, because of the sign ambiguity, you can only get g_1
and g_2 with one configuration of the signs, but you can then consider
a different one, and you get different numbers.

For instance if x=4, and y=9, you might have

2k_1 + 3k_2 = g_1

2k_3 + 3k_4 = g_2

work to give you your g's, but then, you also get

2k_1 - 3k_2 = unknown1

2k_3 - 3k_4 = unknown2

pulled in as well because -3 is a square root of 9.

You see, convention of taking the positive can't change the
mathematical reality, so the algebra behaves based on the mathematical
fact that the square root returns TWO values, which is why you get a
more complicated answer if you solve everything out.

Those numbers are the factors of the number that is incidentally being
factored, or shadow factored, as I like to say.

The idea is absolutely brilliant, and possibly never occurred to any of
you, or other math people because you see the square root as giving one
answer, so to you, sqrt(9) is 3, so you never thought to use square
roots on the factoring problem. Maybe even thinking it obvious that
square roots add a lot of complexity. Your mathematical intuition
being thrown off by flawed teaching.

Well, does the algebra just pull numbers out of the blue when you
change signs?

No, as the other factorizations--the hidden ones which cannot be solved
out because of the sign ambiguity of the square root--are dependent, it
can be shown, on the k's and S.

It's trivial to show, as you can multiply everything out and complete
the square twice to get a term free of x and y, and you just have the
k's and S.

So the algebra can't just pull numbers out of the blue, as the k's are
key, as intriguingly, you have S^2 in that term, so the value of S is
irrelevant as long as it's non-zero.

These ideas are brilliant.

Even as pure math they are brilliant, but sci.math'ers are going to
fight to trash them, and block human progress in this area--to get at
me.

That is mind-boggling when you really think about it.

Human progress in factoring being held-up by small-minded petty people
playing silly mindgames on math newsgroups.

Or is it?

I suggest to you that no matter how stupid math people on sci.math may
believe the world to be there are people who are, for instance, willing
to see through your subterfuges to go after the over $300k RSA is
offering as prize money.

So it's probably a time thing.

Unlike with my other research, you people can't block this
indefinitely--if it works.

So it's a short waiting game. I am certain it can be made to work, and
I am certain that the posts by Peters might have some slight
impact--like in convincing many of you--but there are some smart people
out there who can figure out things like how to include the target
without needing to set k_1 = k_3 = 1.

To me though, the harsh thing is that there can be people like Tim
Peters and Rick Decker who hate progress, ultimately hate civilization,
and I suggest to you, hate mathematics.

AFTER ALL, no matter how much you hate one particular person--like they
hate me--there are limits I would think, where you say, the petty stuff
is umimportant compared to the thrill or importance of this or that
mathematical result.

But these people--from their posts--have no limits.

They are fighting till the bitter end. Fighting till they're broken.
Even if they drag down lots of other people with them, and in the end,
obviously that could mean some very harsh consequences for them.

But hey, without stupid criminals, our world would not be the place it
is today, now would it?

People do the stupidest things because they keep thinking they will get
away with it--until they don't.

James Harris

willo_thewisp@hotmail.com · science forum addict Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 88

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

Tomas Andersson · science forum beginner Joined: 06 Jun 2005 Posts: 43

If you'd stop your madness about the square root of y
having two values and instead started talking about the two
solution of the equation x^2 = y, maybe you should invent some
notation for these solutions, then maybe some people would try
to take this seriously. Nobody would deny that there are two values
that solve this equation but the square root is _defined_ to be
the positive of those values and is therefor _by_definition_
single valued. This is what everyone on earth except you talk
about when they mention square roots, just expecting everyone
else to switch to your definition for no good reason is just
silly.

/Tomas

The Last Danish Pastry · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 29 Apr 2005 Posts: 176

<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150419803.256646.46750@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

bycol · science forum addict Joined: 19 Jul 2005 Posts: 50

<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150419803.256646.46750@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

"He who controls the Math, controls the Universe." Dune.

- Spice Mélange

jstevh@msn.com · science forum Guru Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 951

Tomas Andersson wrote:

Johnny Bravo · science forum beginner Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 12

On 15 Jun 2006 18:03:23 -0700, jstevh@msn.com wrote:

Gib Bogle · science forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 342

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

jstevh@msn.com · science forum Guru Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 951

Gib Bogle wrote:

David Moran · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 252

<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150428139.810824.60180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

jstevh@msn.com · science forum Guru Joined: 21 Jan 2006 Posts: 951

David Moran wrote:

Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirc · science forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 507

preener; wasn't this covered by teh fundamental theorem
of algebra?

David Moran · science forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 252

<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1150428938.088631.126390@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

mensanator@aol.compost · science forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 826

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

Gene Ward Smith · science forum Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Posts: 409

mensanator@aol.compost wrote:

Google