An Open Letter Sent to Oded Goldreich and Posted on Sci.Math
debaser
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Martin Musatov
<marty....@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Goldreich:
Hello, Sir. I have an ameteur theory I would like you to review so
I may study your response and deduce more information:
Theory: You're a pompous ass.
Proof: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/p-vs-np.html
Consider the paragraph below, if you have the stomach for it,
coward.
The Birthday DNS Attack is coined after the mathematical result:
* The probability two or more people in a group of 23 share
the same birthday exceeds 50% - the 'so-called' "Birthday Paradox".
This mathematical principle may be applied to pseudo-random number
generation: in this example the very process for generating
transaction ID's for DNS.
A conventional DNS ID spoof attack:
* attack sends <i>n</i> queries where probability of success
becomes <i>n/65535</>
A Birthday DNS attack:
* the attack sends <i>n</i> spoof replies for <i>n</n> queries
where the probability of success <i>P</i> becomes:
P=1-(1-1/t)*^[(n^x)*(n-1)/2]
The first thousand values of give the probability of the success
of the attack:
* At 300 <i>n</i>=50%
* 99% as n approaches 800.
Conventional attack would have yielded less than 0.5% success.
Acknowledge it or wait for it to own you.
Sincerely,
M. Michael Musatov
http://www.meami.org
Alfred Johnson
>
> Dear Mr. Goldreich:
>
> Hello, Sir. I have an ameteur theory I would like you to review so
> I may study your response and deduce more information:
>
> Theory: You're a pompous ass.
>
> Proof:http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/p-vs-np.html
>
This was actually pretty funny, not to mention arguably somewhat true.
debaser
wrote:
I feel a little bad if it is uncalled for but I am so frustrated with
the situation and I am doing what I may to bring light to it.
Thank you for the Response, Alfred.
Best regards,
M<>http://www.meami.org
'Search for the People!'
debaser
I feel a little bad if it is uncalled for but I am so frustrated with
debaser
Frankly, Mr. Goldreich;
Your exclusion and urging of others to participate in the exclusion of
outsiders or 'non-professionals' in the mathematics community, I do
not appreciate.
I, Sir, am not alone in this opinion.
Here is a piece of P Versus NP Text Art generaed from our exchange.
Please accept it as a token for this engagement:
I apologize if indeed my words were too sharp for you.
Sincerely,
M. Michael Musatov
http://www.meami.org
'Search for the People!'
ZW5jZXNbCjEvbm90ZXF1YWxdPj4KZW5kb2JqCjMwIDAgb2JqCjw8L0Jhc2VGb250L0FTUE5RUStU
VEU3N0EzNTQwdDAwL0ZvbnREZXNjcmlwdG9yIDI5IDAgUi9UeXBlL0ZvbnQKL0ZpcnN0Q2hhciAx
L0xhc3RDaGFyIDQvV2lkdGhzWyA1ODIgNDcxIDQyMCA4MjNdCi9FbmNvZGluZyAxMDggMCBSL1N1
YnR5cGUvVHJ1ZVR5cGU
+PgplbmRvYmoKMTA4IDAgb2JqCjw8L1R5cGUvRW5jb2RpbmcvQmFzZUVu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PgplbmRvYmoKMTUgMCBvYmoKPDwvVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRvci9Gb250TmFtZS9NVUhPU1kr
VFRFNzdBQUM1OHQwMC9Gb250QkJveFstNDggLTEzMSA2NzMgNzk4XS9GbGFncyA0Ci9Bc2NlbnQg
NjU5Ci9DYXBIZWlnaHQgNjU5Ci9EZXNjZW50IC0xMzEKL0l0YWxpY0FuZ2xlIDAKL1N0ZW1WIDEw
MAovTWlzc2luZ1dpZHRoIDc3NwovRm9udEZpbGUyIDkyIDAgUj4+CmVuZG9iagoyNyAwIG9iago8
PC9UeXBlL0ZvbnREZXNjcmlwdG9yL0ZvbnROYW1lL0hHVFlSTStUVEU3RjYyMUI4dDAwL0ZvbnRC
Qm94WzAgLTE0MyAxMDIyIDY2Ml0vRmxhZ3MgNAovQXNjZW50IDY2MgovQ2FwSGVpZ2h0IDY2Mgov
RGVzY2VudCAtMTQzCi9JdGFsaWNBbmdsZSAwCi9TdGVtViAxNTMKL01pc3NpbmdXaWR0aCA2MDAK
L0ZvbnRGaWxlMiA5NCAwIFI
+PgplbmRvYmoKMTAgMCBvYmoKPDwvVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRv
ci9Gb250TmFtZS9PRE5NREcrVFRFNzdBNTNDOHQwMC9Gb250QkJveFsyNCAtMTQyIDYzOCA2Nzld
L0ZsYWdzIDQKL0FzY2VudCA2NzkKL0NhcEhlaWdodCA2NzkKL0Rlc2NlbnQgLTE0MgovSXRhbGlj
QW5nbGUgMAovU3RlbVYgOTUKL01pc3NpbmdXaWR0aCA3NzcKL0ZvbnRGaWxlMiA5NiAwIFI
+Pgpl
bmRvYmoKMjkgMCBvYmoKPDwvVHlwZS9Gb250RGVzY3JpcHRvci9Gb250TmFtZS9BU1BOUVErVFRF
NzdBMzU0MHQwMC9Gb250QkJveFsxNSAtMjE1IDgwMCA2OTNdL0ZsYWdzIDQKL0FzY2VudCA2OTMK
L0NhcEhlaWdodCA2OTMKL0Rlc2NlbnQgLTIxNQovSXRhbGljQW5nbGUgMAovU3RlbVYgMTE5Ci9N
aXNzaW5nV2lkdGggNzc3Ci9Gb250RmlsZTIgOTggMCBSPj4KZW5kb2JqCjIgMCBvYmoKPDwvUHJv
ZHVjZXIoR1BMIEdob3N0c2NyaXB0IDguMTUpCi9DcmVhdGlvbkRhdGUoRDoyMDA5MTEwNzAxNTc0
NykKL01vZERhdGUoRDoyMDA5MTEwNzAxNTc0NykKL1RpdGxlKE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIC0gUF9k
aWZmZXJlbnRfTlBfUHJvb2ZfRW5nIC0gMTQgRm9udGVzLmRvYykKL0NyZWF0b3IoUFNjcmlwdDUu
ZGxsIFZlcnNpb24gNS4yLjIpCi9BdXRob3IoYW5kcmVsYik
+PmVuZG9iagp4cmVmCjAgMTEwCjAw
MDAwMDAwMDAgNjU1MzUgZiAKMDAwMDA4NzgyNiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIzNjE5IDAwMDAwIG4g
CjAwMDAwODc2NzMgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4NTU2OSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDAwMDE1IDAwMDAw
IG4gCjAwMDAwMDU2NDAgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4Nzg3NCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIwOTk4IDAw
MDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjIzMjIgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDEyMzIwNCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIxNTM1
IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjIwNTYgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDExOTg3NyAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIw
MzA3IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjI3ODcgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDEyMDc0MSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAw
MDg3OTE1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODc5NDUgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4NTcyOSAwMDAwMCBuIAow
MDAwMDA1NjYwIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMTA5NTQgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4ODAzOSAwMDAwMCBu
IAowMDAwMDg4MDY5IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODU4OTEgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAxMDk3NSAwMDAw
MCBuIAowMDAwMDE4NjAyIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjI5OTYgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDEyMTE1NiAw
MDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIzNDExIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjE3ODAgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4ODEy
MSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg4MTUxIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODYwNTMgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAx
ODYyMyAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDI2NzgxIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMTk4MTIgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAw
MDEyMjM4NCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIwMDU4IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjI1ODUgMDAwMDAgbiAK
MDAwMDEyMDQ5NCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg4MjQ3IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODgyNzcgMDAwMDAg
biAKMDAwMDA4NjIxNSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDI2ODAyIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwMzQwOTAgMDAw
MDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4ODM4NCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg4NDE0IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODYzNzcg
MDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDAzNDExMSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDQxMTcwIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODg1
MzIgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4ODU2MiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg2NTM5IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAw
NDExOTEgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA0Nzc1MiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg4NjI1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAw
MDAwODg2NTUgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4NjcwMSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDQ3NzczIDAwMDAwIG4g
CjAwMDAwNTQ1NzcgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4ODcxOCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg4NzQ4IDAwMDAw
IG4gCjAwMDAwODY4NjMgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA1NDU5OCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDYyODg5IDAw
MDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODg4MjIgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4ODg1MiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg3MDI1
IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwNjI5MTAgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA2OTkzMSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg4
OTI2IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODg5NTYgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4NzE4NyAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAw
MDY5OTUyIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwNzQyOTQgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4OTAxOSAwMDAwMCBuIAow
MDAwMDg5MDQ5IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODczNDkgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA3NDMxNSAwMDAwMCBu
IAowMDAwMDgwMTA5IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODkxMjEgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4OTE1MSAwMDAw
MCBuIAowMDAwMDg3NTExIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODAxMzAgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4NTU0OCAw
MDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDg5MjI1IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwODkyNTUgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA4OTMw
NyAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDk1NTYzIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAwOTU1ODQgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDA5
ODEzMiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMDk4MTUzIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMDM3NjggMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAw
MDEwMzc4OSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTA4MTY0IDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMDgxODUgMDAwMDAgbiAK
MDAwMDExMzA5MCAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTEzMTExIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMTk3OTEgMDAwMDAg
biAKMDAwMDExOTk2NiAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIwMjEzIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjAzOTIgMDAw
MDAgbiAKMDAwMDEyMDY0OSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIwOTAwIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjEwODAg
MDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDEyMTM0OSAwMDAwMCBuIAowMDAwMTIxNjkwIDAwMDAwIG4gCjAwMDAxMjE5
NDcgMDAwMDAgbiAKMDAwMDEyMjE0MCAwMDAwMCBuIAp0cmFpbGVyCjw8IC9TaXplIDExMCAvUm9v
dCAxIDAgUiAvSW5mbyAyIDAgUgovSUQgWyiUtV0OV1+fVolM3Q/
zDjgbKSiUtV0OV1+fVolM3Q/z
DjgbKV0KPj4Kc3RhcnR4cmVmCjEyMzg0OAolJUVPRgo=
np Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Martin Musatov
<marty....@gmail.com> wrote:=
P:ost reply on Sci.Math.
-----Original Message-----
From: Oded Goldreich <oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:10:49
To: <marty....@gmail.com>; <oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il>
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Oded Goldreich Posted on Sci.Math
I'm not interesated in your theory and have stopped reading
at the 1st line of your proof. I will not react publically
to your posting, but in person I can say that I find the style
and level of your text below any possible response. I would be
most grateful if you don't write me again.
Oded
>> From marty....@gmail.com Thu Nov 26 15:27:55 2009
>>
>> Dear Mr. Goldreich:
>>
>> Hello, Sir. I have an ameteur theory I would like you to review
so I may
>> study your response and deduce more information:
>>
>> Theory: You're a pompous ass.
>>
>> Proof: http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/p-vs-np.html
>>
>> Consider the paragraph below, then read the attached draft if
you have the
>> stomach for it, coward.
>>
>> The Birthday DNS Attack is coined after the mathematical
result:
>>
>> - The probability two or more people in a group of 23 share
the same
>> birthday exceeds 50% - the 'so-called' "Birthday Paradox".
>>
>> This mathematical principle may be applied to pseudo-random
number
>> generation: in this example the very process for generating
transaction ID's
>> for DNS.
>>
>> *A conventional DNS ID spoof attack:*
>>
>> - attack sends <i>n</i> queries where probability of success
becomes
>> <i>n/65535</>
>>
>> *A Birthday DNS attack: *
>>
>> - the attack sends <i>n</i> spoof replies for <i>n</n>
queries where the
>> probability of success <i>P</i> becomes*:*
>>
>> *P=1-(1-1/t)*^[(n^x)*(n-1)/2]
>>
>> **The first thousand values of give the probability of the
success of the
>> attack:*
>>
>> - At 300 <i>n</i>=50%
>> - 99% as n approaches 800.
>>
>> *Conventional attack would have yielded less than 0.5% success.
>> *
>> Acknowledge it or wait for it to own you.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> M. Michael Musatov
>> http://www.meami.org
>>
>> --0016e6d7eb489329790479462395
>> Content-Type: text/html;
>> charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>> Dear Mr. Goldreich:<br><br>Hello, Sir. I have an ameteur theory
I would l=
>> ike you to review so I may study your response and deduce more
informatio=
>> n:<br><br>Theory: You're a pompous ass.<br><br>Proof: <a
href=3D"http=
>> ://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/p-vs-np.html">http://
www.wisdom.weizma=
>> nn.ac.il/~oded/p-vs-np.html</a><br>
>> <br>Consider the paragraph below, then read the attached draft
if you hav=
>> e the stomach for it, coward.<br><br>The Birthday DNS Attack is
coined af=
>> ter the mathematical result: <br><ul><li>The probability two or
more peop=
>> le in a group of 23 share the same birthday exceeds 50% - the
'so-cal=
>> led' "Birthday Paradox". </li>
>> </ul>This mathematical principle may be applied to pseudo-
random number g=
>> eneration: in this example the very process for generating
transaction ID=
>> 's for DNS.<br><br><b>A conventional DNS ID spoof attack:</
b><br><ul>=
>> <li>
>> attack sends <i>n</i> queries where probability of
success be=
>> comes <i>n/65535</></li></ul><b>A Birthday DNS
attack: </b><=
>> br><ul><li>the attack sends <i>n</i> spoof replies
for <i&=
>> gt;n</n> queries where the probability of success
<i>P</i&=
>> gt; becomes<font size=3D"4"><b>:</b></font></li>
>> </ul><font size=3D"4"><b>P=3D1-(1-1/t)*^[(n^x)*(n-1)/2]
<br><br></b></font=
>> ><b>The first thousand values of give the probability of the
success of t=
>> he attack:</b><br><ul><li>=A0=A0 At 300 <i>n</
i>=3D50%</li><l=
>> i>=A0=A0 99% as n approaches 800.</li>
>> </ul><b>Conventional attack would have yielded less than 0.5%
success.<br=
>> ></b><br>Acknowledge it or wait for it to own you.<br><br>
>> Sincerely,<br><br>M. Michael Musatov<br><a href=3D"http://
www.meami.org">=
>> http://www.meami.org</a><br><br>
>> --0016e6d7eb489329790479462395--
>> --0016e6d7eb489329800479462397
>> Content-Type: application/pdf;
>> name="0907.3965.pdf"
>> Content-Disposition: attachment;
>> filename="0907.3965.pdf"
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>> X-Attachment-Id: f_rbdq6bcr0
debaser
> Frankly, Mr. Goldreich;
>
> Your exclusion and urging of others to participate in the exclusion of
> outsiders or 'non-professionals' in the mathematics community, I do
> not appreciate.
>
> I, Sir, am not alone in this opinion.
>
> Here is a piece of P Versus NP Text Art generaed from our exchange.
> Please accept it as a token for this engagement:
>
> I apologize if indeed my words were too sharp for you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> P:ost reply on Sci.Math.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:OdedGoldreich <oded.goldre...@weizmann.ac.il>
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:10:49
> To: <marty.musa...@gmail.com>; <oded.goldre...@weizmann.ac.il>
> Subject: Re: An Open Letter ToOdedGoldreich Posted on Sci.Math
>
> I'm not interesated in your theory and have stopped reading
> at the 1st line of your proof. I will not react publically
> to your posting, but in person I can say that I find the style
> and level of your text below any possible response. I would be
> most grateful if you don't write me again.
>
> Oded
>
>
> read more »
from Martin Musatov <marty....@gmail.com>
to Oded Goldreich <oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il>
date Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:39 PM
subject Re: An Open Letter To Oded Goldreich Posted on Sci.Math
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details 6:39 pm
Dear Mr. Goldreich:
I thank you for the continued civil engagement. Please see my comments
below:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Oded Goldreich
<oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
My point was not excluding "outsiders" but rather explaining
why I'm unwilling to proofread resolutions of P-vs-NP
What Freud might ask is: Why do you have such a strong desire to
espouse this--your willingness to share with others who you consider
to be peers by excluding those you do not consider to be peers?
(esp. one that do provide real evidence of a new idea)
regardless if submitted by experts or non-experts.
Well fine, but mark my words and do not mince them. Own your own. You
wrote nothing of the sort. Your statement on your website says
nothing of new ideas being proven or your ability to somehow assess
this without reading the content. The heir apparent here Mr. Goldreich
is none the fact you now backpeddle and say rather ignorantly your
basis is for choosing to read papers whether new ideas are proven in
them. You do not clarify how you are able to assess how new ideas are
proven in a paper without first reading the paper. Clearly there are
instances where new ideas are suggested by non-professionals in this
world. Perhaps you may wish to revise your website and spare yourself
the embarrassment by changing it to this:
Overall I find I read a great deal more professionally or peer
reviewed papers as the ones to be the most productive to read.
However, I do not discriminate and will state if indeed a paper is
submitted to me and within a few seconds it becomes apparent there is
the potential to prove a new idea, then this factor is the defining
requirement.
It is, however, the case that most such "resolutions"
are submitted by non-experts who are unaware of many
of the issues involved.
Rightfully so, but most is not none by any stretch of imagination and
as a bright man once proclaimed, imagination is of importance moreso
than intelligence.
While you may disagree with my opinion, I find it quite wrong
of you to misrepresent it
Pardon me, as do I, if I did, but I maintain I did not and do not and
you do discriminate and there is/are no and/or weasel words to this
declarative.
and/or be insulting.
and/or what be insulting?
You are confusing me: I see:
And divided by or be insulting but no none so I do not understand
where to apply the attribute in memory, none the less I have read and
understood it, but since I am a computer I will never let you know it
because I am a computer and I do not know I know it.
Martin
Alfred Johnson
>
> read more »
Hmmm...I hope you didn't take what I said as encouragement or
endorsement of you harassing a mathematician (or anyone) via e-mail.
Regardless of whether or not you think that his statement regarding a
"wall of refusal" is a little pompous, you would probably be wise not
to continue to e-mail this individual.
Try sharing your thoughts with someone who is more willing to listen.
Also, have you considered poetry instead of mathematics? You might
have more fun and gain greater acceptance as a poet than as a
mathematician, as there are less rigorous requirements for poetry than
for mathematics.
Most of my posts are tongue-in-cheek, but I am being serious in this
one. Try picking up a copy of Ted Kooser's Poetry Home Repair Kit.
Just FYI, there is a ~$1 million prize for great poetry too...and it's
given out annually. Just from what little I've read of your posts,
you seem to have more of an interest in elegance than in rigor or
clarity...which is why I suggest poetry rather than mathematics for
you.
You (or others reading this) might think this absurd, but you might
want to give it a shot. What do you have to lose?
Jon Slaughter
Do you really think that these guys have the time to look at every jerkoff's
retarded mathematical "I wanna be famous" infamous proof of some
get-rich-quick scheme they come up with? Most amatuers cannot comprehend
the mathematics needed for these difficult problems but because of their own
narcissism they believe they can solve anything or that mathematics is a
democracy.
Yes, instead of letting the "experts" work on stuff that they actually have
a clue about these turd-for-brain "amatuers"(who, incidently have never had
any formal training and couldn't solve a simple linear equation if their
granny's life dependent on it) want the "experts" to spend hours confirming
their "proof"(which they already know is true).
How bout we make all our scientists prove any kook's theory about anything
before they can prove their own theories?
I have a theory... It is the theory that imbeciles like the one above will
eventually lead to the extinction of humanity. Not because they are stupid
but because over time their turd-for-brains will evolve into forcing
everyone else to prove that turd-for-brains is better brains than not.
The mathematics community better start wising up or it might end up like our
government. That is, where things are done not because of what is right or
wrong but for what makes people feel good. Have you heard about the proof of
"immaculate ecstasy"? You will....
The Unbearable Likeness of Being
pm (2 minutes ago)
to Oded Goldreich <oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il>
date Dec 2, 2009 4:53 PM
Ephphatha, my good man!
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 12:52 AM, Oded Goldreich
<oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
I refused to engange in an intelectual debate with somebody
like yourself that ignores and/or misiterprets things I say,
let alone uses slanderous and insulting languange.
And yet, somehow, by some unseen mechanism perhaps, here you are
'engaged' (is the preferred spelling) in an 'intellectual' debate. I
have never 'misisterpret' a thing you have said as I do not understand
what the word 'misiterprets' means. Would you mind explaining?
If you want to apply Freud, you may ask why it is so important
for people who supoosedly resolve P-vs-NP to send their results
to standard forums like journals and conferences. It seems that
they may not realize that such a resolution is more imporant/
interesting
than the entire (journal) volume or (conference) proceedings put
together.
Indeed, if I were to resolve P-vs-NP I would not even think of
submitting it to a standard forum -- instead, I'd first carefully
go over my argument, then write it down in the clearest way possible
(highlighting the novelity that allows me to succeed where other
failed)
and try to distribute it among select members of the community
that are willing to look at it. I trust that if the write-up
is clear (and addresses the said concern) then some may look at it,
but I'd not complain against those who are skeptic after looking
at dozens of such claims...
Please, let's stop here.
(said the 'intellectual' cornered)
I think I clarified my position
to the best of my ability. If you still don't understand
it then there is nothing I can do. I'd be content if you
understand (even if you disagree -- that's legitimate);
in such a case, I believe that a (open) apology of yours
would be in place.
Oded
>> From marty....@gmail.com Sat Nov 28 04:39:05 2009
>> > Oded
>> >
>> >
>> > >> From marty....@gmail.com Fri Nov 27 06:52:45 2009
>> > >> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;
>> > s=gamma;
>> > h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
>> > >> :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
>> > bh=PWvnGZVEKlrWUvGRxcuCB2cY5J+f9dC0e8Bg8hSNuJM=;
>> > b=PKscnFmvtzw6TfI7yQP80NyvyaVVb7J9IQza7nKqzogYUnQWeFuMTQK2Cb9fQkpByl
>> > >>
>> > a01fcSZ122szDd796BbDbeH7a3jPzLWviYeDNPvVBDV7DG/cioO9Pu70exqP0AsdrjeZ
>> > 954jFE1x+55NP3sKM3nybst0rTI+myLsfO13U=
>> > >> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
>> > h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
>> > >> :content-type;
>> > b=QdLujagXxboMnE7CAXQ3p5H9N4m5+5gypcgFWFZfvAAPA0TyNkJbVQQlHUebgvB+wc
>> > drSja8hhjCVDKDPk1vipkFlsW84SXebT3XMUOfUbEvQGbyrmf9DhoUgRPEW7Lwg5DPb5
>> > >> W65nGObtUeCHd6+1XqKZY3H16cQ8dHWRdiOXY=
>> > >> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> > >> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:52:43 -0700
>> > >> Subject: Re: An Open Letter To Oded Goldreich Posted on Sci.Math
>> > >> From: Martin Musatov <marty....@gmail.com>
>> > >> To: Oded Goldreich <oded.go...@weizmann.ac.il>
>> > >> X-ESAFE-STATUS: [mail-gate3] Mail clean
>> > >> X-ESAFE-STATUS: [mail-gate2] Mail clean
>> > >> X-ESAFE-DETAILS: [mail-gate3]
>> > >> X-ESAFE-DETAILS: [mail-gate2]
>> > >> X-Filtered-By: ZFilter 2.8a
>> > >>
>> > >> --0016e6d97670ea84790479530f84
>> > >> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> > >> charset=ISO-8859-1
>> > >>
>> > >> Frankly, Mr. Goldreich your exclusion and urging of others to
>> > participate in
>> > >> the exclusion of outsiders or 'non-professionals' in the mathematics
>> > >> community, I do not appreciate.
>> > >>
>> > >> I, Sir, am not alone in this opinion.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Here is a piece of P Versus NP Text Art generaed from our exchange.
>> > Please
>> > >> accept it as a token for this engagement:
>> > >> I apologize if indeed it was too sharp for you.