JSH: So why lie about P vs NP?
JSH
for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
actual atomic bomb.
That argument seems lost on irrational Usenet people like "Uncle Al"
who I imagine at times ranting at Einstein, mocking him for not being
able to blow up some major city if his crazy, crackpot relatoovity (or
whatever insulting name they might apply) really worked! Where's your
nukie Eisie baby, "Uncle Al", might post. Why can't you blow up New
York City, Mr. Einstein?, he could taunt.
One other claim posters routinely make is that even if the public key
encryption system RSA was broken other techniques could be used so
everything would be ok.
But I proved P=NP.
If so, then NO asymmetric system could be considered safe because
there would be a way to easily break it, which could be figured out,
at any time, maybe even say, by some smart kid somewhere in the world.
So the full story is that my research if accepted ends the current way
the Internet operates for finance, which is one way I have at times
been hesitant to push it myself, as I LIKE buying things online with
my credit card. If all the public key systems are known to be
potentially insecure because P = NP, then you might have to get a key
sent to you, like by regular mail, before you could use a website.
The impact to web based businesses could be huge.
I've surmised that some might just want to keep using the current
techniques! Whether they actually work or not, because that way their
business could continue as they do now.
So the refusal of certain people to accept my research in certain
areas can be financially motivated, and is one reason I'm leery of
even finding certain answers on my own and instead am waiting for
pickup from around the world.
One scary scenario is that I progress my research to some undeniable
level, demonstrate to some government official, and then promptly
disappear as some people decide that the impact to the US economy is
too great to risk allowing the knowledge to be known.
So I think to myself that discovery could kill me, which is a sobering
thought...
But that leaves this Sword of Damocles you might say hanging over the
world.
Or, I'm wrong. I'd actually like to be wrong, but the mathematics
says I'm not. And Usenet posters howling to the contrary do not
change mathematical truth. Denial is as old as humanity as is blatant
stupidity in the face of potential danger which just is hard for
people to imagine or accept.
You may live in a world that is insecure in ways you will not accept,
but that does not mean the insecurity does not exist.
The current wait is for pickup from around the world.
I post for various reasons but one reason is to record. But also I
find it amazing given how much evidence is stacked up to show that I'm
correct that otherwise intelligent people can just go on about their
lives as if all of that couldn't be swept away in an instant for
reasons that are preventable.
I look at people having kids and wonder. I miss the faith that so
many of you take for granted.
James Harris
eric gisse
> One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
> basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
> surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
> factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
> application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
> indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
> actual atomic bomb.
In order to make the claim that you can factor large numbers, you need to
either factor a large number or prove that it is substantially faster than
current techniques. You've done neither.
[...]
cheesron
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06967e79-069f-4612...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
> basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
> surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
> factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
> application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
> indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
> actual atomic bomb.
factor 1111
that is real easy, I bet I can do it faster with a pencil.
>
> One other claim posters routinely make is that even if the public key
> encryption system RSA was broken other techniques could be used so
> everything would be ok.
yes it is. You dont know about any of it.
>
> But I proved P=NP.
no you didn't.
Where?
>
> So I think to myself that discovery could kill me, which is a sobering
> thought...
>
> But that leaves this Sword of Damocles you might say hanging over the
> world.
>
> Or, I'm wrong.
you GOT IT! .........finally!
> I'd actually like to be wrong, but the mathematics
> says I'm not.
trust me, it says your wrong. Very Very wrong. Exceedingly wrong.
>And Usenet posters howling to the contrary do not
> change mathematical truth.
you have mathematical false. Flawed Math.
> Denial is as old as humanity as is blatant
> stupidity in the face of potential danger which just is hard for
> people to imagine or accept.
you are in denial that your NPD is in total control now.
>
> You may live in a world that is insecure in ways you will not accept,
> but that does not mean the insecurity does not exist.
>
> The current wait is for pickup from around the world.
>
> I post for various reasons but one reason is to record. But also I
> find it amazing given how much evidence is stacked up to show that I'm
> correct that otherwise intelligent people can just go on about their
> lives as if all of that couldn't be swept away in an instant for
> reasons that are preventable.
yes, and while you banter on usless topics, your life is waisting away.
You JSH, STINK at high school math.
Try rasing 50 cats in your apartment, do something!
>
> I look at people having kids and wonder. I miss the faith that so
> many of you take for granted.
figures.........
>
>
> James Harris
I Mustav Posting Something
harpsichord up your festering backside.
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:06967e79-069f-4612...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
"Look at me! I'm JSH and I post from google cuz every real news server cut
me off for being a spamming imbecile!"
JSH
> "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:06967e79-069f-4612...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> > for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
> > basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
> > surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
> > factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
> > application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
> > indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
> > actual atomic bomb.
>
> factor 1111
> that is real easy, I bet I can do it faster with a pencil.
I factored much bigger numbers than that! Didn't matter.
> > One other claim posters routinely make is that even if the public key
> > encryption system RSA was broken other techniques could be used so
> > everything would be ok.
>
> yes it is. You dont know about any of it.
>
>
>
> > But I proved P=NP.
>
> no you didn't.
It never ceases to amaze me the power some Usenet posters seem to
think comes from just saying no.
> Where?
Go to Google (has to be Google) and do a search on: optimal path
algorithm
I should come up #2. (Seems some Djisktra do is beating me for #1 for
some unknown reason.)
I figured out that you could add a traveler going backwards in time to
meet himself in order to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, and
then I generalized that solution beyond that problem.
It's a scary solution as if correct it may imply that the laws of
physics allow routine transmission of information backwards through
time, though it could intriguingly enough explain why we perceive time
as only moving forward, that is, it could explain why there is a time
arrow.
So the optimal path algorithm could do a lot to explain why we
perceive our world as we do, but it could also mean that information
from the future routinely is transmitted back into the past in order
to create the future, which just so turns so many things upside down
that it's hard to contemplate.
James Harris
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Perception is finite, all measurements have a random component.
Intrinsically, nothing could ever be acausal;
randomness is a human construct... it's artificial, not real.
Intrinsically, time is static... it's a spacial dimension.
The whole truth can't ever be known but, if it could,
you'd see that so·called “choice” is an illusion.
All “choices” are nominal, virtual, not real.
Mark Murray
> Go to Google (has to be Google) and do a search on: optimal path
> algorithm
Your path is not optimal.
> I figured out that you could add a traveler going backwards in time to
> meet himself in order to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, and
> then I generalized that solution beyond that problem.
You never did any complexity analysis. If you did, you'd know your
claim is bogus.
You won't do this, because (contrary to your claim) you might find
you are wrong, and youREALLY don't like this.
> It's a scary solution as if correct it may imply that the laws of
> physics allow routine transmission of information backwards through
> time, though it could intriguingly enough explain why we perceive time
> as only moving forward, that is, it could explain why there is a time
> arrow.
"... if correct ..." "... may imply ..." "... it could ...".
I thought you said is WAS correct. Make up your mind.
> So the optimal path algorithm could do a lot to explain why we
> perceive our world as we do, but it could also mean that information
> from the future routinely is transmitted back into the past in order
> to create the future, which just so turns so many things upside down
> that it's hard to contemplate.
More "could" "should" and "may". Not a proof then. A fantasy.
M
--
Mark Murray
rossum
wrote:
>On Oct 23, 9:32 pm, "cheesron" <nos...@spamless.com> wrote:
>> "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:06967e79-069f-4612...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
>> > for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
>> > basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
>> > surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
>> > factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
>> > application for doing so,
Here James claims not to have a full application that can factor large
numbers.
>> > which I liken to having the physics theory
>> > indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
>> > actual atomic bomb.
>>
>> factor 1111
>> that is real easy, I bet I can do it faster with a pencil.
>
>I factored much bigger numbers than that! Didn't matter.
Now James claims to have an application that can factor numbers larger
that 1111.
Perhaps James you could scale up your application that factors numbers
larger that 1111 to be able to factor RSA sized numbers. I know that
you are a Java programmer. Surely you are aware of the Java
BigInteger class:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/math/BigInteger.html
A Java BigInteger will easily hold an RSA sized number. What is
preventing you converting your 1111+ factoring program to one using
BigIntegers that can factor RSA numbers? I suspect that if you posted
the first program here, or on one of the Java groups, you could even
get someone to help with the conversion.
[snip rest]
rossum
Uncle Al
>
> One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
> basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
> surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
> factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
> application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
> indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
> actual atomic bomb.
You are a mewling Head Start wretch belching implanted self-esteem in
counterpoint to sickeningly obvious facts in evidence. Factor an RSA
product or shut your incessantly voluminously drooling stooopid boring
mouth. Put up or shut up. Impotent farceurs have no basis for
seduction.
> James Harris
"Saepe errans, numquam dubitans"
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
cheesron
On Oct 23, 9:32 pm, "cheesron" <nos...@spamless.com> wrote:
> "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:06967e79-069f-4612...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> > for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
> > basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
> > surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
> > factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
> > application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
> > indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
> > actual atomic bomb.
>
> factor 1111
> that is real easy, I bet I can do it faster with a pencil.
I factored much bigger numbers than that! Didn't matter.
>>>>>>>>>> no, you have not. indicate source URL NOW.
> > One other claim posters routinely make is that even if the public key
> > encryption system RSA was broken other techniques could be used so
> > everything would be ok.
>
> yes it is. You dont know about any of it.
>
>
>
> > But I proved P=NP.
>
> no you didn't.
It never ceases to amaze me the power some Usenet posters seem to
think comes from just saying no.
>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you lieing about P vs NP ?
> Where?
Go to Google (has to be Google) and do a search on: optimal path
algorithm
>>>>>>>> give me a URL, or STFU.
I should come up #2. (Seems some Djisktra do is beating me for #1 for
some unknown reason.)
I figured out that you could add a traveler going backwards in time to
meet himself in order to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem, and
then I generalized that solution beyond that problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> smoking that wackie weed again, snookums?
It's a scary solution as if correct it may imply that the laws of
physics allow routine transmission of information backwards through
time, though it could intriguingly enough explain why we perceive time
as only moving forward, that is, it could explain why there is a time
arrow.
>>>>>>>> forget physics, JHS, you don't know the lingo. (time arrow!)
So the optimal path algorithm could do a lot to explain why we
perceive our world as we do, but it could also mean that information
from the future routinely is transmitted back into the past in order
to create the future, which just so turns so many things upside down
that it's hard to contemplate.
>>>>>>>>>> Just try to contemplate reality for now.
James Harris
JSH
> "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:643c737a-33b6-4201...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 9:32 pm, "cheesron" <nos...@spamless.com> wrote:
>
> > "JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:06967e79-069f-4612...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> > > for me to factor a large number or to factor an RSA number as I have
> > > basic research (for instance, I invented a factoring technique called
> > > surrogate factoring) that opens the door *potentially* to rapid
> > > factoring of large numbers though I don't claim to have a full
> > > application for doing so, which I liken to having the physics theory
> > > indicating atomic weapons are possible without necessarily having an
> > > actual atomic bomb.
>
> > factor 1111
> > that is real easy, I bet I can do it faster with a pencil.
>
> I factored much bigger numbers than that! Didn't matter.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> no, you have not. indicate source URL NOW.
Sigh. I'll do a rare posting of a link to my math blog since I don't
see a Google search that pulls up the page:
http://mymath.blogspot.com/2007/02/surrogate-factoring-examples.html
That was early research mainly to just get some notion that the path
taken was working, but I still had multiple problems to solve before I
reached the integer factorization algorithm, which does pull up with a
Google search, but only at #10, when I do a search just now on:
integer factorization algorithm
The evidence is there. And I've posted it before on sci.math and the
sci.crypt newsgroup and I assure you, no matter what I factored they
did not care. The rationalizations would fly, insults would just keep
coming and I'd just see posts claiming that it DID NOT MATTER.
Just like when I got published in a math journal the math people said
publication DID NOT MATTER. (And later they killed the math
journal!!! Google: SWJPAM)
They are just blocking. Their one real rule is that no matter what
evidence or proof I give, they'll just insult me and claim it's not
important.
James Harris
tj Frazir
Big numbers..
A 1 ton car gets 25 MPG.
A 25 ton truck gets 7 MPG.
That means the truck is getting 175 MPG per ton . And the train is 200
MPG per ton.
What is the mpg your car WILL get ?
250 MPG . at 1 stroke per second .
Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg Changed:4:43 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
you cant google this pic.
You cant see it on tv or the news and wount find any math I didnt write.
Inventing the end of th oil age when the gov lives on oil money can
get you killed.
The saudies will have a hit on you because without oil the ragheads are
all fucked.
The green pigs want to make money on wind and tied up money on thier
bets ,,
They hate this engine as well.
All the arogant automakers hate it.
So to stop it they will just pass a law so when ever this pic pops up
they can contain it and get you because they controle all file sharing.
They will just pass inernet laws and stop the spreadof this engine.
Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg
Address:http://jeffrelf.f-m.fm/Whale.Steam.Engine.2.jpg Changed:4:43 PM
on Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Mark Murray
>> no, you have not. indicate source URL NOW.
>
> Sigh. I'll do a rare posting of a link to my math blog since I don't
> see a Google search that pulls up the page:
>
> http://mymath.blogspot.com/2007/02/surrogate-factoring-examples.html
While you have examples there, they pre-date your "Surrogate factoring
full theory" document. They also appear to use a different theory,
as you use different variables and what appears to be a different
procedure.
In your examples you mention (a+b), but there is no explanation of what
these are. You never appear to use \alpha, c, S, k0.
EG: In your theory, you refer to k0 as follows
<quote>
Prior research has also shown that the minimum value for k which
I call k0 is given by finding the maximum even k0 such that
abs(T - 2k0^2)
is a minimum.
</quote>
But your examples don't appear to do this. Instead you use (without
explanation) k=T/30. Why 30?
Having "picked" k, you "found" a factorisation with k=19978. You
left out your working there. How (exactly) did you do this? You then
"got" y and x. How? You then factored x+y (how?) which has three
factors. How did you know which to pick, or did you try them all?
What happens when x+y has many factors?
Your following example is even more confusing, with a negative k,
and you mention iterations, without providing the working.
Please fill in the gaps.
M
--
Mark Murray
cheesron
"Mark Murray" <w.h....@example.com> wrote in message
news:4ae4e15d$0$2537$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
JSH will fill in the gaps with more variables. oodles of them
ronchese
> One of the continuing taunts I see in replies from Usenet posters is
> for me to factor a large number
so shut up and do so.
Try 1111 and see if you can factor that, troll
>
> James Harris
Noob
> Go to Google (has to be Google) and do a search on:
> optimal path algorithm
>
> I should come up #2.
> (Seems some Djisktra do is beating me for #1 for some unknown reason.)
"some Djisktra" :-)
Are you saying that your... contribution is more important than that
of Edsger W. Dijkstra?