Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Secret math
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Christopher M.
Apr 14, 2012, 8:55:52 AM4/14/12
to
I think it's odd that people can't get patents for math formulas.
I guess if someone invented a new formula they'd probably want to keep it a
trade secret.
There must be a lot of secret math out there.
Not good for science.
But science isn't everything.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
I guess if someone invented a new formula they'd probably want to keep it a
trade secret.
There must be a lot of secret math out there.
Not good for science.
But science isn't everything.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
Pfs...@aol.com
Apr 14, 2012, 4:02:16 PM4/14/12
to
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:55:52 -0400, "Christopher M."
<nospam_...@floo.com> wrote:
>I think it's odd that people can't get patents for math formulas.
>
>I guess if someone invented a new formula they'd probably want to keep it a
>trade secret.
>
>There must be a lot of secret math out there.
>
>
Doubtful! New discoveries, or derivations, or even extensions of old
<nospam_...@floo.com> wrote:
>I think it's odd that people can't get patents for math formulas.
>
>I guess if someone invented a new formula they'd probably want to keep it a
>trade secret.
>
>There must be a lot of secret math out there.
>
>
results yield publications. Publications lead to promotion, tenure,
salary increases, respect by collegues and sometimes fame.
Christopher M.
Apr 14, 2012, 8:49:43 PM4/14/12
to
<Pfs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:snljo798vb3nu9553...@4ax.com...
Pfs...@aol.com
Apr 15, 2012, 10:01:01 AM4/15/12
to
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:49:43 -0400, "Christopher M."
<nospam_...@floo.com> wrote:
>>>trade secret.
>>>
>>>There must be a lot of secret math out there.
>>>
>>>
>> Doubtful! New discoveries, or derivations, or even extensions of old
>> results yield publications. Publications lead to promotion, tenure,
>> salary increases, respect by collegues and sometimes fame.
>I don't think Google will be publishing their algorithm anytime soon.
>W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
>
This makes no nsense at all! GOOGLE isn't a math journal and isn't a
<nospam_...@floo.com> wrote:
>>>trade secret.
>>>
>>>There must be a lot of secret math out there.
>>>
>>>
>> Doubtful! New discoveries, or derivations, or even extensions of old
>> results yield publications. Publications lead to promotion, tenure,
>> salary increases, respect by collegues and sometimes fame.
>I don't think Google will be publishing their algorithm anytime soon.
>W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
>
publisher.
Algorithm?? I was responding to your ill informed claim about
math advancements being kept secret -- a nonsense claim!
Frederick Williams
Apr 15, 2012, 10:36:08 AM4/15/12
to
Pfs...@aol.com wrote:
>
> [...] I was responding to your ill informed claim about
Williamson.
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
>
> [...] I was responding to your ill informed claim about
> math advancements being kept secret -- a nonsense claim!
I don't see why it is nonsense. Consider the work of Ellis, Cocks, and
Williamson.
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
bert
Apr 15, 2012, 4:42:09 PM4/15/12
to
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:36:08 PM UTC+1, Frederick Williams wrote:
lesson there is that what one man can discover, another
man also can - and in practice pretty soon will; so any
secrecy about a math advance is merely temporary.
--
> Pfss...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > [...] I was responding to your ill informed claim about
> > math advancements being kept secret -- a nonsense claim!
>
> I don't see why it is nonsense. Consider the work of Ellis, Cocks, and
> Williamson.
And from much longer ago, Cardano and Tartaglia. But the
> >
> > [...] I was responding to your ill informed claim about
> > math advancements being kept secret -- a nonsense claim!
>
> I don't see why it is nonsense. Consider the work of Ellis, Cocks, and
> Williamson.
lesson there is that what one man can discover, another
man also can - and in practice pretty soon will; so any
secrecy about a math advance is merely temporary.
--
Christopher M.
Apr 15, 2012, 7:47:45 PM4/15/12
to
"bert" <bert.hu...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11471578.311.1334522529676.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbvf19...
relationships.
Pfs...@aol.com
Apr 16, 2012, 5:29:55 PM4/16/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:47:45 -0400, "Christopher M."
<nospam_...@floo.com> wrote:
>
>> man also can - and in practice pretty soon will; so any
>> secrecy about a math advance is merely temporary.
>
>That's true. It's not they're inventing widgets. It's about fundamental
>relationships.
>
HUH??? In modern times most, I would guess, "secret" stuff by
<nospam_...@floo.com> wrote:
>
>> man also can - and in practice pretty soon will; so any
>> secrecy about a math advance is merely temporary.
>
>That's true. It's not they're inventing widgets. It's about fundamental
>relationships.
>
persons who took industrial or govt. jobs and agreed to whatever
"secrecy" is involved. Most likely the National Security Agency,
or one or more of the other 18(?) security agencies have some
number theory for cyrtptology which hasn't yet been made public.
bert
Apr 17, 2012, 6:42:17 AM4/17/12
to Pfs...@aol.com
On Monday, April 16, 2012 10:29:55 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
> Most likely ... security agencies have some number
> theory for cryptology which hasn't yet been made public.
Almost certainly they have, but the secrecy cannot be
permanent. What one agency has discovered, another
is very likely to, and anyone outside these agencies
could eventually do the same.
--
> Most likely ... security agencies have some number
> theory for cryptology which hasn't yet been made public.
Almost certainly they have, but the secrecy cannot be
permanent. What one agency has discovered, another
is very likely to, and anyone outside these agencies
could eventually do the same.
--
Pfs...@aol.com
Apr 18, 2012, 9:51:14 AM4/18/12
to
Christopher M.
Apr 19, 2012, 2:23:47 PM4/19/12
to
<Pfs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gj3po79mho2pv1oiv...@4ax.com...
bert
Apr 19, 2012, 5:50:37 PM4/19/12
to
On Thursday, April 19, 2012 7:23:47 PM UTC+1, Christopher M. wrote:
> I was talking more about trade secrets, not about top-secret stuff.
Whether trade secrets or top secrets, the same
> I was talking more about trade secrets, not about top-secret stuff.
argument applies; it can't stay secret for long.
--
Ruaraidh Petrie
Jun 19, 2012, 11:57:19 AM6/19/12
to
With no cause, we don't discriminate
Discovery is to be disowned
Our currency is flesh and bone
Hell opened up and put on sale
Gather 'round and haggle
'Dogs of War' - Pink Floyd
Off topic? Well it's a good song anyway.
I personally consider this indisputable proof that discovery is indeed to
be disowned, and that mathematics is something that one enters into at the
bottom of the ladder - and there is realistically only so far the one can
climb without books and such. Those pesky publishers can make it very
difficult in theory. Wait... I am right, god just told me I'm right, so
that proves it.
Sincerely,
Jesus
0 new messages