There are actually two discussions that can take place about my
surrogate factoring theory:

The theory itself, and implementations of the theory.

Not surprisingly some posters have seized on the efficacy of my
prototype program, which primarily is a proof-of-concept, which I have
put out there so you can get some sense of how things are going without
having to first read through the paper.

If that prototype had worked as well as I'd hoped, I wouldn't be
posting about it.

I'm talking this out now on Usenet *because* I'm seeing a failures in
that program that puzzle me, and having hit a wall, I'm talking the
problem out.

First thing with a young theory with an implementation that doesn't
behave as expected is to check the theory!!!

Maybe it's just wrong.

I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.

Maybe I messed up in checking my own theory, so it seems reasonable
that I might suppose that if there were any serious people on these
groups with a modicum of interest that they might go check the theory
and point out any errors in it.

I don't see that happening.

Mostly it's just a bunch of chattering.

Now I continue to work on understanding the theory, and in extending
it, for instance I stepped through an important argument to try and see
the probability that this method would factor.

That argument indicated that if you have f_1 f_2 = j^2 T, where

M^2 = j^2 + T

and M is your target to be factored and T is the surrogate factored
instead in order to get that target factorization, then for some random
f_1 and f_2, that is taking one of the combinations of factors that
multiply to give j^2 T, the probability that it will factor M is almost
exactly 50%.

And there are LOTS of combinations typically for factors of j^2 T by
two's, so the method should work well over 90% of the time, and more
like over 99% of the time, which is not what I'm seeing with my
implementation, though part of it is that it's heavily recursive, in
that it calls itself to factor T.

That is, the surrogate factoring method is itself being called to
factor the top level surrogate, in an interative process which goes
down to a T small enough to be factored by a list of primes up to 200.

The size of T in my prototype program drops by about 1/6th with each
iteration, which is what I deliberately programmed in.

So, since T is on the order of M^2, the number of iterations for a
number M of around magnitude 10, is about 26 iterations.

You can work out the probabilities for what's the likelihood of failure
with 90% factoring with that many iterations.

Still I think the program is doing worse than that, and I'm working on
why.

There are two discussions: theory and implementation

The theory should be the simplest area to actually attack as it's not
complicated.

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sufactor/

Now the discussions can go on indefinitely as posters who reply to me
usually just say something negative or mocking.

Why do they bother? Who knows. It is Usenet and some people think
that responding to someone making claims they don't *believe* are true,
with some reply just claiming something is not true, will work.

It's some odd problem in the human brain. I think some of these
posters actually believe that by replying saying I must be wrong, they
are actually affecting whether or not I'm wrong, without ever having to
worry about looking over the mathematical theory or check an algorithm.

It's a weird quirk of the human brain. Some people believe that by
saying something is true, they make it true.

In contrast, note I have a paper, which outlines a mathematical theory.
I have an implementation in a program that tries to step through that
theory, and it does often factor.

It's in its failures that my primary interest lies.

Right now I'm not most interested in the successes here, but in the
failures.

If you are a highly intelligent person with a great deal of competence
in this area then you will find that I will not react badly to a cogent
reply.

You may also find that you will be verbally abused if you just make a
cogent reply without joining in the gang behavior of simply trying to
*claim* I'm wrong.

In my experience that is a serious fear for most of you. You do not
wish to look stupid, in such a public arena, and you do not want to
anger the posters who make it a point of going after people who don't
follow a certain line.

Ok, that's your choice. But make no mistake, this research could very
well impact your life, and sooner, not later.

If down the road your simple social fears meant that you did not make
yourself part of the process and maybe help produce a better outcome,
then remember that, as your own failure.

But still, often the best beginnings are with failures, if you can
learn from them.

James Harris

From:	jstevh at msn.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	23 Jan 2005 16:05:24 -0800

Jos=E9 Carlos Santos wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
> > If that prototype had worked as well as I'd hoped, I wouldn't be
> > posting about it.
>
> And if pigs had wings, they would fly.
>
>

Are you sure?

That prototype didn't work as well as I'd hoped. That's just a
reality.

But it does work. It does factor.

The method I use is very original, while your reply is not.

I have a theory, with a paper outlining the theory, and a prototype
program showing that the equations in the paper are correct and that
*something* is in fact happening.

You are a babbling boob talking about flying pigs.

See the difference?

You produce nothing. I put the information out there: mathematics and
a program.

You talk saying nothing of value. I talk from a mathematical
foundation.

You are just some dumb-ass I feel like replying to, while I am the
discoverer.

You are nothing but someone I can use to vent upon.
So I vent, and you exist. Your life has purpose.

James Harris

From:	oðin
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:41:03 -0800

> It's a weird quirk of the human brain. Some people believe that by
> saying something is true, they make it true.

I see. So for example it is a weird quirk of the human brain when someone
believes that by *saying* that "surrogate factoring is polynomial time" is
true, they make it true. I get it...

From:	Xcott Craver
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:44:33 GMT

wrote:
>
>I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.
>
>Maybe I messed up in checking my own theory, so it seems reasonable
>that I might suppose that if there were any serious people on these
>groups with a modicum of interest that they might go check the theory
>and point out any errors in it.
>
>I don't see that happening.

That's because they are waiting for you to factor an RSA challenge,
which you could do if your math was correct.

The onus is upon you to concretely prove that you have an efficient
algorithm. The only way you can really do this is running it
on a large composite which other people cannot factor.

If you cannot do this, then arguably you have not solved the
factoring problem.
--Xcott

From:	tomstdenis at gmail.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	23 Jan 2005 16:34:11 -0800

> I MAY VERY WELL BE WRONG but the theory says otherwise. That an idea

This is exactly [well one of] the problem here. Theories say nothing.

A hypothesis questions. A theory argues. A proofs states.

You use thoeries to support a line of thought and you use proofs to
establish truth of the matter [that is theorem is true or it's false].

It would also help if you understood what "theory" really meant.

t = r^2 - M

is not a theory. "Can I factor by surrogates?" is not a theory either.
It's a hypothesis [and an incomplete one].

A theory would read such as "A properly constructed surrogate can lead
to polynomial time factorization." That's a valid theory. It's
neither true nor false (since it's open to interpretation). This
theory can't be put on display as "proof" though. You have to further
reduce the theory and prove it's components.

You use real science [e.g. a-bomb and others] as an example of your
methodology at work. When in fact all that is true is that you don't
understand how science is actually approached by real scientists.
Because of this you are very unlikely to achieve anything of
significant merit in the field of mathematics.

Tom

From:	José_Carlos_Santos
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:51:00 +0000

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> If that prototype had worked as well as I'd hoped, I wouldn't be
> posting about it.

And if pigs had wings, they would fly.

> I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.

As much as your proof of FLT was not wrong?

> Now the discussions can go on indefinitely as posters who reply to me
> usually just say something negative or mocking.

They would stop if you would stop posting here, you know?!

> It's a weird quirk of the human brain. Some people believe that by
> saying something is true, they make it true.

And you see one of those persons each morning, while shaving.

> In contrast, note I have a paper, which outlines a mathematical theory.

You know, when a mathematician states "I have a paper" what he or she
means is that he or she has actually *published* a paper.

> If you are a highly intelligent person with a great deal of competence
> in this area then you will find that I will not react badly to a cogent
> reply.

Such as all cogent replies to your claimed proof of FLT?

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	23 Jan 2005 19:53:18 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> I MAY VERY WELL BE WRONG but the theory says otherwise. That an idea
> that solves the factoring problem
What do you mean by "solve the factoring problem"?

From:	jstevh at msn.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	23 Jan 2005 16:01:19 -0800

C. Bond wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> >
> > I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.
>
> Well then, maybe you are an incompetent programmer -- in spite of
your
> claims to the contrary.
>
> A solution to a problem would consist of a correct theory and a
working
> implementation. You have contributed neither.
>

Well, maybe I AM an incompetent programmer.

See, I am open to possibilities, you are not.

You are single-mindedly devoted to simply arguing with me, and denying
the value of my work.

That makes you predictable, and is not an indication of intelligence.

I MAY VERY WELL BE WRONG but the theory says otherwise. That an idea
that solves the factoring problem--kind of supposedly a hard and
significant problem--that was discovered last December still isn't best
implemented in, well, in January, may be such an astounding failure to
you as to be proof of mathematical failure, but you're clearly not very
bright.

I say, yes, I may be wrong, but PROVE I am wrong.

Repeatedly some of you make these stupid replies or make dumb requests
that don't touch the theory, which show your almost total lack
understanding of how real discoveries are made.

Heard of the Number Field Sieve?

Did it pop up overnight?

Do you think they went from theory to a full implementation in less
than a month?

Do you even have a clue of its history?

Here's my reality check of you. Show that you have even rudimentary
knowledge in the field of factoring.

I dare you. It's a challenge. I say you are a babbling Usenet boob
who talks way out of your league who has not a clue how ANY discovery
gets done.

Reply showing you have *some* understanding of the history of how
something famous in the field of factoring was found, and how long it
took to develop it.

Prove you have even rudimentary knowledge.

And I say you will dodge this challenge, run away from it, but still
come back later posting as if people should take you seriously as
that's what people like you do.

You know nothing, demonstrate nothing, can produce nothing, but you
talk nonetheless, as if you believe that merely talking proves you are
of some value.

I say you are of no value except as foils for me to vent upon when I
get in the mood, like now.
There you actually do have some value.

James Harris

From:	David C. Ullrich
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:18:54 -0600

On 23 Jan 2005 08:51:42 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:

>[...]
>
>First thing with a young theory with an implementation that doesn't
>behave as expected is to check the theory!!!
>
>Maybe it's just wrong.
>
>I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.

You really have no idea how awesomely hilarious this is?
People all over the planet are rolling on the floor right
this second.

How many times have you explained that something must
be right because you've proved it, later to admit that
no, it was wrong? More than a hundred, surely. More
than a thousand? Ten thousand?

>Maybe I messed up in checking my own theory, so it seems reasonable
>that I might suppose that if there were any serious people on these
>groups with a modicum of interest that they might go check the theory
>and point out any errors in it.
>
>[...]
>
>Right now I'm not most interested in the successes here, but in the
>failures.
>
>If you are a highly intelligent person with a great deal of competence
>in this area then you will find that I will not react badly to a cogent
>reply.

Ditto. The number of times that you've reacted badly to perectly
polite and compelling refutations is where we math guys got the
word "uncountable".

>You may also find that you will be verbally abused if you just make a
>cogent reply without joining in the gang behavior of simply trying to
>*claim* I'm wrong.
>
>In my experience that is a serious fear for most of you. You do not
>wish to look stupid, in such a public arena, and you do not want to
>anger the posters who make it a point of going after people who don't
>follow a certain line.

Guffaw. Is this a new one? The many people who agree you're right
about everything are just afraid to speak up for fear of the rest
of us?

Fascinating. That also explains why journals reject your papers,
right?

>Ok, that's your choice. But make no mistake, this research could very
>well impact your life, and sooner, not later.
>
>If down the road your simple social fears meant that you did not make
>yourself part of the process and maybe help produce a better outcome,
>then remember that, as your own failure.
>
>But still, often the best beginnings are with failures,

Excellent. Then you've made about a thousand great beginnings since
you started posting on sci.math.

>if you can
>learn from them.

Oops, there's that.

>James Harris

************************

David C. Ullrich

From:	David Kastrup
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:44:24 +0100

David C. Ullrich writes:

> On 23 Jan 2005 08:51:42 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
>>You may also find that you will be verbally abused if you just make a
>>cogent reply without joining in the gang behavior of simply trying to
>>*claim* I'm wrong.
>>
>>In my experience that is a serious fear for most of you. You do not
>>wish to look stupid, in such a public arena, and you do not want to
>>anger the posters who make it a point of going after people who don't
>>follow a certain line.
>
> Guffaw. Is this a new one? The many people who agree you're right
> about everything are just afraid to speak up for fear of the rest
> of us?

The rest of _us_? No, himself. Making a cogent reply is certain to
get you verbally abused by _him_. And _he_ goes after people who
don't follow his line.

While I doubt that many people are _afraid_ of that, it _is_ a
consideration that makes quite a few one stop bothering with him after
a while. In disgust.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

From:	Jesse F. Hughes
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:39:27 +0100

David C. Ullrich writes:

> On 23 Jan 2005 08:51:42 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
>>[...]
>>
>>First thing with a young theory with an implementation that doesn't
>>behave as expected is to check the theory!!!
>>
>>Maybe it's just wrong.
>>
>>I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.
>
> You really have no idea how awesomely hilarious this is?
> People all over the planet are rolling on the floor right
> this second.

You exaggerate. No one laughs so hard at reruns.

"Sorry, wakeup to the real world. You're on your own dependent on me
as your guide. Luckily for you, I'm self-correcting to a large extent,
so if the proof were wrong, I'd tell you. It's not wrong."

--
"Demons were like genies or philosophy professors---if you didn't word
things /exactly/ right, they delighted in giving you absolutely
accurate and completely misleading answers."
-- Terry Pratchett, /Wyrd Sisters/

From:	C. Bond
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:40:47 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> There are actually two discussions that can take place about my
> surrogate factoring theory:
>
> The theory itself, and implementations of the theory.
>
> Not surprisingly some posters have seized on the efficacy of my
> prototype program, which primarily is a proof-of-concept, which I have
> put out there so you can get some sense of how things are going without
> having to first read through the paper.
>
> If that prototype had worked as well as I'd hoped, I wouldn't be
> posting about it.
>
> I'm talking this out now on Usenet *because* I'm seeing a failures in
> that program that puzzle me, and having hit a wall, I'm talking the
> problem out.
>
> First thing with a young theory with an implementation that doesn't
> behave as expected is to check the theory!!!
>
> Maybe it's just wrong.
>
> I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.

Well then, maybe you are an incompetent programmer -- in spite of your
claims to the contrary.

A solution to a problem would consist of a correct theory and a working
implementation. You have contributed neither.

--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and
the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com