Years ago I believed that math was a different field when it came to
demonstration, until I found my prime counting function, and talked
about it, and watched people lie about it.

So here I had my own research counting prime numbers, and supposedly
primes are a big deal, but people lied about it, mainstream
mathematicians ignored it.

Life goes on.

Deep down I guess I knew that the same thing would happen with
factoring.

I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk
out the math but it won't matter. People will lie about it.

But this time it's different.

You may lie about it, but someone can use the research, and then they
can read your email, read your on-line transactions, and basically walk
in and ruin your life.

Mathematicians will deny, deny, deny until something breaks.

And then what? Oh, I'm sure there will be shock and more denial. It
will supposedly be no one's fault, as if there's no reason the world
should expect mathematicians to have paid attention to a breakthrough
result in the area of factoring, factoring algorithms that no one has
ever seen, factoring numbers in a way that no one quite realized could
be done.

Sure I have dinky results now, but that doesn't mean that someone else
couldn't rapidly advance things.

Meanwhile, nothing will happen in the mainstream.

The mainstream will do nothing until something breaks.

Dammit. When something breaks and you bastards start your denial game
I hope the world sees through you and puts the responsibility right on
your heads.

YOU are the people who said that factoring was a hard problem.

YOU are the people that the world trusts.

YOU are the people who have the information now and are going to do
nothing to warn, until something breaks.

And when something does break, don't think you'll be able to run away
from the truth then, as the world as we know it is likely to end.
James Harris

From:	oðin
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:44:22 -0800

> Years ago I believed that math was a different field when it came to
> demonstration, until I found my prime counting function, and talked
> about it, and watched people lie about it.

It was not new. It was not important. It was a joke, really. Has anyone out
it to practicle or theoretical use? Nope!

> Deep down I guess I knew that the same thing would happen with
> factoring.

Yes. Same thing happened... Will you learn from that this time?

> I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk
> out the math but it won't matter. People will lie about it.

You are factoring numbers with 50% success rate! You admit that yourself!
And slower and less effective than trial division!!! Whats to lie about? It
is a piece of shit.

> You may lie about it, but someone can use the research, and then they
> can read your email, read your on-line transactions, and basically walk
> in and ruin your life.

Someone can use "the research" and then they can read our email? You have
done no research that could help anyone to do that.

> Sure I have dinky results now, but that doesn't mean that someone else
> couldn't rapidly advance things.

And it does not mean that someone else *could* advance anything from what
you have developed!

> YOU are the people who said that factoring was a hard problem.

Who said that? It is well know that factoring is believed to be hard, but
nobody is claiming to know that it is indeed hard. I am sure that it is at
least very hard for you.

> YOU are the people that the world trusts.

Nope. The people of the world do not look to sci.math for trust!

> YOU are the people who have the information now and are going to do
> nothing to warn, until something breaks.

What information do we have? Just the information that James Harris is a
yamering idiot?

> And when something does break, don't think you'll be able to run away
> from the truth then, as the world as we know it is likely to end.

Yes James.... now take your meds...

From:	David Kastrup
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:44:45 +0100

"oðin" writes:

>> Years ago I believed that math was a different field when it came to
>> demonstration, until I found my prime counting function, and talked
>> about it, and watched people lie about it.
>
> It was not new. It was not important. It was a joke, really. Has anyone out
> it to practicle or theoretical use? Nope!
>
>> Deep down I guess I knew that the same thing would happen with
>> factoring.
>
> Yes. Same thing happened... Will you learn from that this time?
>
>> I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk
>> out the math but it won't matter. People will lie about it.
>
> You are factoring numbers with 50% success rate!

Small numbers. Factoring large numbers with large factors with 50%
success rate would be impressive.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

From:	oðin
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:10:25 -0800

This is the fascinating behavior:

James Harris repeatedly shoots his mouth off about having a big factoring
discovery. He spews a bunch of nonsense stuff that is supposed to look like
algebra, but actually means and proves nothing. He gives no heed to counter
examples and errors found by others. He does not even give any explanation
of why he thinks that it might work. He gets shot down repeatedly, and
fights back with whining and ranting about being a misunderstood genius.

Then he implements his so-called surrogate factoring algorithm in a piece of
trash he thinks is a Java program. And he then he reports to us that it does
not work half the time, and we can see that it runs slower than trial
division. Instead of admitting that he cannot do math and cannot program, he
says, "Well, it looks like my method has a probabilistic component"!!! What
a twit.

Then he tells us that we are wicked because we are censoring his ideas,
which may save the world from impending doom. As he says, the end of the
world will be on our heads.. Just because James says that he *might* have
something worthwhile, we are expected to take it as a discovery, in spite of
all the evidence to the contrary.

Look James... either your theory is wrong, and/or your code implementation
is buggy. I believe both problems are playing a role. In any case, you are a
pathetic failure in factoring, just as you were in FLT.

Give it up while you are behind.

From:	Lits O'Hate
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	21 Jan 2005 13:10:08 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk
> out the math but it won't matter. People will lie about it.

That's true. For example, you lied about it when you wrote, "I have
just shown you in a few lines how to factor an arbitrary non-zero
positive integer M in polynomial time."

From:	Douglas A. Gwyn
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:30:44 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> YOU are the people who said that factoring was a hard problem.

It is a hard problem, for arbitrary large numbers.
In fact, despite your having worked on it for a long time,
you haven't solved the problem; your own posted results
of your own implementation demonstrate that quite clearly.
In a previous thread many months ago, various newsgroup
contributors took the trouble to analyze your algorithm
of the time (which seems quite similar to your current one)
and were able to show why it wasn't practical.
Because of such evidence, there is nothing irrational
about people choosing to ignore your work.

If you really have a workable method, use it to claim one
of the RSA factoring prizes; I guarantee that *that* would
stir up interest in your work.

From:	Xcott Craver
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:37:32 GMT

wrote:
>
>I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk
>out the math but it won't matter. People will lie about it.

Well, then use your algorithm to factor an RSA challenge.

You don't have to convince people of the math if you can actually
do this. You don't even have to publish the software.

>Sure I have dinky results now, but that doesn't mean that someone else
>couldn't rapidly advance things.

But this would still be true if you had no results at all.

Now please refrain from posting extravagant claims until you have a
working program.

--X

From:	Tim Smith
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:09:03 GMT

In article , Xcott Craver
wrote:
> wrote:
>>
>>I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk out
>>the math but it won't matter. People will lie about it.
>
> Well, then use your algorithm to factor an RSA challenge.
>
> You don't have to convince people of the math if you can actually do
> this. You don't even have to publish the software.

I'm not sure this is really fair. A factoring method that is too slow to
actually factor interesting numbers in practice could still be of great
theoretical interest.

For example, if someone found a factoring algorithm that ran in polynomial
time (on non-quantum computers), but it was so slow that it couldn't even
factor 10-bit numbers, no one would be dismissing it because it can't tackle
the RSA challenges.

On the other hand, considering the number of times James has been wrong, and
the extraordinary effort it takes to get him to see when he is wrong, and
the way even then he calls the people who saw he was wrong from the start
names, perhaps it is reasonable to require him to do something to show that
his work ha some merit before wasting time on it, and factoring an RSA
challenge number would certainly do that.

--
--Tim Smith

From:	David Kastrup
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:43:23 +0100

jstevh@msn.com writes:

> You may lie about it, but someone can use the research, and then
> they can read your email, read your on-line transactions, and
> basically walk in and ruin your life.

So just break the RSA challenge if it is so easy.

> Sure I have dinky results now, but that doesn't mean that someone
> else couldn't rapidly advance things.

But we are not ridiculing someone else.

> And when something does break, don't think you'll be able to run
> away from the truth then, as the world as we know it is likely to
> end.

hammer, Hammer, HAMMER, HAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEERRRRRRR!!!!!!

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

From:	Gonçalo Rodrigues
Subject:	Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:35:01 +0000

On 20 Jan 2005 18:29:18 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:

>YOU are the people who said that factoring was a hard problem.
>
>YOU are the people that the world trusts.
>
>YOU are the people who have the information now and are going to do
>nothing to warn, until something breaks.
>

YOU are the people that said He can explain.

YOU are the people that eat earth with no salt.

YOU are the people that break under the brakes.

YOU are the people and I am the Hammer.

YOU are the people that have chosen silence.

Hey, this is really fun...

YOU are the people with ten fingers in two hands.

YOU are the people that said.

Oh what have I done unto you, my people...

YOU people are fasincating.

YOU are the people that don't run but walk.

YOU are the people that have repudiated the Hammer.

YOU are the people of the oval heads.

YOU are the people that I will pound.

Hey, YOU! YOU are the people.

>And when something does break, don't think you'll be able to run away
>from the truth then, as the world as we know it is likely to end.

YOU are the nail and I am the Hammer,

>James Harris

Regards from a nail,
G. Rodrigues