# Innovation, my TSP algorithm and factoring, timelines

Discussion in 'Java' started by JSH, Aug 23, 2008.

1. ### JSHGuest

Turns out that there is a lag between pickup of any revolutionary idea
and its presentation.

I have research into the factoring problem which I think is kind of
good, though I didn't actually finish an algorithm as I decided it was
too dangerous. Gist of that research was to consider two congruences
where mathematicians typically consider one:

x^2 = y^2 mod p
z^2 = y^2 mod T

where T is the target composite to be factored and p is an odd prime
that I call a helper prime as it's just there to help you factor T. I
solved out the problem with a couple of additional variables as one of
my key problem solving techniques involves adding in extra variables,
or degrees of freedom as physics people like to say (I think as I'm a
physics person).

If I'm right then it turns out that I don't actually have to finish
out the research but the time lag until someone does, if I'm right,
would be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years which is kind of a W.A.G.
but I think it's roughly correct.

Now more recently I came up with an algorithm which I think solves the
Traveling Salesman Problem and in so doing proves that P=NP, as
naturally, from thinking I have a break on the factoring problem, I'd
go to TSP looking to apply the same type techniques against it!

And doing so I came up with two travelers where one is going backwards
in time and you multiply the costs along legs times the distance
between the two travelers to figure out the total cost of a path and
pick the least cost path, using a global variable.

Now THAT algorithm is a couple of weeks old but I've given a complete
algorithm, so that should speed things up, so I'd estimate that it'd
take from one month to a year before it's picked up somewhere in the
world if it is correct.

Which leaves me with nothing to do but wait.

Oh, so why not simply implement myself? Like solve the factoring
problem? Or directly prove that the TSP algorithm works?

Well, they might be wrong! And I don't want the disappointment if so!

And, I gain little with success. Now I'm some "crackpot" mouthing off
on Usenet. With success I'd have to be someone else. There'd be a
tremendous weight of public opinion on me when I did things that
people disapproved of, and the scariest thing is that whole role model
thing.

I don't want to be a role model.

And I don't want to answer a lot of stupid questions, so there.

If I were truly irresponsible I'd simply keep the research to myself
and let the world go hang.

But instead I'm at least putting it out there, though you people so
sorely tempt me. If I could just put all of it back in the bottle so
to speak, I'd be very tempted as trust me, it's a stupid world. I'm
really scared of being dragged down to doom with the rest of you
people, but hey, maybe that's just destiny.

So, in any event, I get to party, be irresponsible to an extent, and
have silly conversations with funny people who take themselves too
seriously and think they know more than they do, while not feeling
like I'm cheating the world as the information is out there.

People just have to use it.

Or not!

IF I am wrong, then of course, no one will ever do anything with my
ideas, so there.

It's a nice complete package which allows me to go back to silly
conversation with funny people.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 23, 2008

2. ### Joshua CranmerGuest

JSH wrote:
> I have research into the factoring problem which I think is kind of
> good, though I didn't actually finish an algorithm as I decided it was
> too dangerous.

Factoring's not dangerous... real security has progressed to more
advanced forms, like elliptic curves. RSA retracted its factoring
challenge because they considered the art sufficiently advanced that it
wasn't needed anymore. Factoring is essentially a solved problem.

> If I'm right then it turns out that I don't actually have to finish
> out the research but the time lag until someone does, if I'm right,
> would be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years which is kind of a W.A.G.
> but I think it's roughly correct.

From what I've read on sci.math, it seems that your factoring algorithm
as some subtle flaws, like the fact that is unable to a number like 6.
My questions on that forum still stand, months-old as they are.

Moving out of mathematics and into CS...

> And doing so I came up with two travelers where one is going backwards
> in time and you multiply the costs along legs times the distance
> between the two travelers to figure out the total cost of a path and
> pick the least cost path, using a global variable.

And that was wrong.

> Oh, so why not simply implement myself? Like solve the factoring
> problem? Or directly prove that the TSP algorithm works?
>
> Well, they might be wrong! And I don't want the disappointment if so!

So you want all the credit if it works and none of the toil of actually
checking it? The world doesn't work like that. He who makes it work gets
the credit.

> I don't want to be a role model.

While I don't wish mean to be rude, I doubt you would even if you solved
<insert major problem here>.

> But instead I'm at least putting it out there, though you people so
> sorely tempt me. If I could just put all of it back in the bottle so
> to speak, I'd be very tempted as trust me, it's a stupid world. I'm
> really scared of being dragged down to doom with the rest of you
> people, but hey, maybe that's just destiny.

With all due respect, AFAICT, your great innovations seem to be down a
surrogates to get arbitrarily big without anything to really convince me
that it gets smaller. The TSP solution relies on simple properties that
do poor jobs of reflecting the complexity of the graph.

Well, at least we are on the road to reclaiming c.l.j.p....

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Joshua Cranmer, Aug 23, 2008

3. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 22, 6:13 pm, Joshua Cranmer <> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
> > I have research into the factoring problem which I think is kind of
> > good, though I didn't actually finish an algorithm as I decided it was
> > too dangerous.

>
> Factoring's not dangerous... real security has progressed to more
> advanced forms, like elliptic curves. RSA retracted its factoring
> challenge because they considered the art sufficiently advanced that it
> wasn't needed anymore. Factoring is essentially a solved problem.

They just won't pay. The numbers are still up.

Are you claiming that the other RSA challenge numbers have been
factored?

The Internet still uses public key encryption.

If P=NP, then a polynomial time solution is possible for factoring
meaning that public key encryption is no longer viable as a security
system.

It'd be the end of one way systems like it as well, meaning that
people would have to trade keys by some other means, like, oh, snail
mail.

> > If I'm right then it turns out that I don't actually have to finish
> > out the research but the time lag until someone does, if I'm right,
> > would be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years which is kind of a W.A.G.
> > but I think it's roughly correct.

>
>  From what I've read on sci.math, it seems that your factoring algorithm
> as some subtle flaws, like the fact that is unable to a number like 6.
> My questions on that forum still stand, months-old as they are.

Yeah, it won't factor numbers that have 3 as a factor because it uses
helper primes where the helper prime has to be less than the smallest
factor, so ironically it will not factor 15.

That's irrelevant to the issue of how well the technique might work
against really large numbers where there are other bigger practical
issues that I do not say have been solved.

> Moving out of mathematics and into CS...
>
> > And doing so I came up with two travelers where one is going backwards
> > in time and you multiply the costs along legs times the distance
> > between the two travelers to figure out the total cost of a path and
> > pick the least cost path, using a global variable.

>
> And that was wrong.

I'm not debating whether it is wrong or right. I'm merely stating
facts.

> > Oh, so why not simply implement myself?  Like solve the factoring
> > problem?  Or directly prove that the TSP algorithm works?

>
> > Well, they might be wrong!  And I don't want the disappointment if so!

>
> So you want all the credit if it works and none of the toil of actually
> checking it? The world doesn't work like that. He who makes it work gets
> the credit.

I don't have to check it.

If it's right then someone in the world will eventually use it.

So talk on the subject is irrelevant.

> > I don't want to be a role model.

>
> While I don't wish mean to be rude, I doubt you would even if you solved
> <insert major problem here>.

That would be nice. It's such a silly world.

Adults should be able to do as they please as long as they're not
hurting themselves or others.

> > But instead I'm at least putting it out there, though you people so
> > sorely tempt me.  If I could just put all of it back in the bottle so
> > to speak, I'd be very tempted as trust me, it's a stupid world.  I'm
> > really scared of being dragged down to doom with the rest of you
> > people, but hey, maybe that's just destiny.

>
> With all due respect, AFAICT, your great innovations seem to be down a
> surrogates to get arbitrarily big without anything to really convince me
> that it gets smaller. The TSP solution relies on simple properties that
> do poor jobs of reflecting the complexity of the graph.

I'm not doing surrogate factoring further. It's too dangerous.

I'm not discussing the merits of my optimal path algorithm.

> Well, at least we are on the road to reclaiming c.l.j.p....

Not really. My stated objective is to recruit for my Google Code
project implementing my optimal path algorithm. You claim it doesn't
work. Ok. Moving on.

Also I'm just hanging out and chatting.

Nothing has changed except you have clearly wasted your time if you
truly believe there is nothing to my research.

I, on the other hand, am continuing to popularize my research and can
do things like check Google search results (can you for anything you
do?) as well as look over site statistics for my various web sites.

How do you think I got to the point where my blog gets hits from over
80 countries?

And it's better here from my perspective as there are fewer cases
where I have people just calling me names or just wildly ranting or
replying with complete nonsense which is a major issue on other
newsgroups where posters have gone to drastic tactics to try and
control what they see as their newsgroups.

The newsgroup sci.crypt was crippled by someone just bombing it with
nonsense postings though I don't think that was my fault, but seemed
to be about other web wars.

Regardless, you do better NOT drawing interest with a lot of replies
to my posts as at best you help generate more attention for my
research where you can do the Google searches to see what that means,
or at worst you can attract some of the nastier denizens of Usenet who
might try to cripple your newsgroup--though hopefully that nonsense is
at an end.

The reality that I have nothing further to do but wait has not
changed.

And in the meantime I can hang out and chat, goof off, and just do
whatever while the innovation pickup lag goes through its inevitable
paces.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 23, 2008
4. ### Joshua CranmerGuest

JSH wrote:
> The Internet still uses public key encryption.

Public key encryption does not equal RSA or other factoring. As I've
said before, there's elliptic curve; there are other even more secure
algorithms.

> If P=NP, then a polynomial time solution is possible for factoring
> meaning that public key encryption is no longer viable as a security
> system.

No, it just means you have to keep bumping up key sizes every few years.

> I don't have to check it.

You do if you want to claim that it's correct, which you do a lot of.

> I'm not doing surrogate factoring further. It's too dangerous.

No, it's not. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate your ignorance of
computer security.

> I, on the other hand, am continuing to popularize my research and can
> do things like check Google search results (can you for anything you
> do?) as well as look over site statistics for my various web sites.

As I matter of fact, I can. But I'm not going to debase myself to such
pointless comparisons. Suffice to say, I would be willing to hazard that
the work of most posters in this newsgroup could easily outstrip you in
the most important metric, i.e., how many people actually use the product.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Joshua Cranmer, Aug 23, 2008
5. ### JunoexpressGuest

> Turns out that there is a lag between pickup of any revolutionary idea
> and its presentation.
>

Although the waiting time for anyone picking up one of *your* ideas is
not finite.

> I have research into the factoring problem which I think is kind of
> good, though I didn't actually finish an algorithm as I decided it was
> too dangerous.

Just another lame attempt at avoiding reality...

M

Junoexpress, Aug 23, 2008
6. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 22, 7:39 pm, Joshua Cranmer <> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
> > The Internet still uses public key encryption.

>
> Public key encryption does not equal RSA or other factoring. As I've
> said before, there's elliptic curve; there are other even more secure
> algorithms.
>
> > If P=NP, then a polynomial time solution is possible for factoring
> > meaning that public key encryption is no longer viable as a security
> > system.

>
> No, it just means you have to keep bumping up key sizes every few years.

Not with anything that would follow from my research.

If what I call surrogate factoring is viable then public key

People could literally crack public keys in seconds on a desktop, when
my own goal had been cracking one within 10 minutes, which is why I
stopped doing the research when I realized that if it could be made to
work, it would be super fast, as in unbelievably fast, ending public
key encryption over night.

You have no idea what you're poking at here.

If my research line in this area were fully exploitable as in correct
then it could literally collapse the global economy.

> > I don't have to check it.

>
> You do if you want to claim that it's correct, which you do a lot of.

Um, but if I'm claiming it's correct now, but have not checked it...

> > I'm not doing surrogate factoring further.  It's too dangerous.

>
> No, it's not. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate your ignorance of
> computer security.

If someone has extended the research and it is viable then they are
cracking public key encryption like it doesn't exist, right now.

If the optimal path algorithm is viable and proves that P=NP, then
someone might also know that they can crack ANY system that tries to
use the one way easy, other way hard approach, meaning they could
crack military encryption doing the same stuff.

And if the country that has done that is not a Western power then it
would keep that as a secret for strategic reasons, and that could have
happened by now.

If so, then the world as we know it will change, and there will be a
total change in the world order as THAT nation, will end up on top.

> > I, on the other hand, am continuing to popularize my research and can
> > do things like check Google search results (can you for anything you
> > do?) as well as look over site statistics for my various web sites.

>
> As I matter of fact, I can. But I'm not going to debase myself to such
> pointless comparisons. Suffice to say, I would be willing to hazard that
> the work of most posters in this newsgroup could easily outstrip you in
> the most important metric, i.e., how many people actually use the product..

Yeah, yeah, some of you have done Linux distribution stuff, or worked
on developing this or that, but none of you are the individual who
runs it all from start to finish, who has complete control, and is
competing against the world with the likes of Microsoft way behind.

And none of you can do a search on anything like "definition of
mathematical proof" and see your own personal definition come up #2,
just behind the Wikipedia.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 23, 2008
7. ### Guest

On Aug 22, 8:35 pm, JSH <> wrote:
>
> Now more recently I came up with an algorithm which I think solves the
> Traveling Salesman Problem and in so doing proves that P=NP,
>

Hi, James. I see that you're still too stupid to understand the
counterexamples that have already been posted. Nice to see that
nothing's changed.

, Aug 23, 2008
8. ### Alan MorganGuest

In article <>,
JSH <> wrote:
>On Aug 22, 7:39=A0pm, Joshua Cranmer <> wrote:
>> JSH wrote:
>> > The Internet still uses public key encryption.

>>
>> Public key encryption does not equal RSA or other factoring. As I've
>> said before, there's elliptic curve; there are other even more secure
>> algorithms.
>>
>> > If P=3DNP, then a polynomial time solution is possible for factoring
>> > meaning that public key encryption is no longer viable as a security
>> > system.

>>
>> No, it just means you have to keep bumping up key sizes every few years.

>
>Not with anything that would follow from my research.
>
>If what I call surrogate factoring is viable then public key
>
>People could literally crack public keys in seconds on a desktop,

Depends on the key size and on the nature of the algorithm. If
factoring turns out to be O(n^5000000) then P=NP, but I don't see
that causing many practical problems. Even if it is something more
tractable you can just crank the key size through the roof.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Alan Morgan, Aug 23, 2008
9. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 22, 7:39 pm, Joshua Cranmer <> wrote:
> JSH wrote:
> > The Internet still uses public key encryption.

>
> Public key encryption does not equal RSA or other factoring. As I've
> said before, there's elliptic curve; there are other even more secure
> algorithms.
>
> > If P=NP, then a polynomial time solution is possible for factoring
> > meaning that public key encryption is no longer viable as a security
> > system.

>
> No, it just means you have to keep bumping up key sizes every few years.
>
> > I don't have to check it.

>
> You do if you want to claim that it's correct, which you do a lot of.
>
> > I'm not doing surrogate factoring further.  It's too dangerous.

>
> No, it's not. To suggest otherwise is to demonstrate your ignorance of
> computer security.

Ok. Here's the research result at which I stopped which is a way to
solve for quadratic residues mod p, but the "p" which is for an odd
prime, can be replaced with an "N" for natural number which can be a
composite to be factored.

Given a quadratic residue q modulo p where p is an odd prime, where

k^2 = q mod p

it is a method to find k, which comes from reversing some of the
surrogate factoring equations.

As usual with my research you get additional variables as now you need
T, where

T = 2q mod p

and while you'll want the smallest T--because it has to be factored--
you must pick an odd T, where T - 2q must be non-zero.

Next you have to factor T, as with integer factors f_1 and f_2 of T,
where f_1*f_2 = T:

k is given by

k = 3^{-1}(f_1 + f_2) mod p.

And my analysis indicates that there should be a 50% probability that
you will get the correct k with each set of factors (weirdly too
simple, I know, but hey, just wrong?). Checking is done by just
squaring your k modulo p to see if you get back the correct quadratic
residue q.

Example: Let q=2, p=17 so T = 2(2) mod 17 = 4 mod 17.

Here T=21 does not work, but T = 55 does, and the answer then from

3k = 2(8) mod 17, is k = 11 mod 17, as 112 = 2 mod 17 as required.

To have an absolute case when you must get a solution for k, T mod 3 =
2 is required, and one of the factors f_1 or f_2 when both are
positive and non-unit must be greater than p (which again has to do
with why 15 doesn't work!), then k is given exactly by

k = (f_1 + f_2)/3

with 100% certainty.

If T mod 3 = 1, because p mod 3 = 1 and q is divisible by 3, then an
alternate set of equations can be used as then

T = 10q mod p

and

k = 19^{-1}(3(f_1 + f_2)) mod p

and an exact solution occurs if with positive factors f_1 or f_2 is
greater than p, both are non-unit, and z is divisible by 19 as then

k = 3(f_1 + f_2)/19.

That is an incredibly small bit of research in terms of physical size,
but if it's right, then public key encryption is dead, as replace the
p with N, where N is your target composite to factor, then calculate a
quadratic residue modulo N and then use the equations above to solve
for that same residue and you may get back your original or its pair.

i.e. If you start with 'a' you may get back 'b', where

a^2 = b^2 mod N

and factor N from (a-b) or (a+b), and THAT is what paused me and later
sent me looking for an algorithm for TSP.

But you say everything is fine, and no worries! So Joshua, we'll go
on your opinion here for the moment.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 23, 2008
10. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 23, 1:16 pm, rossum <> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:05:31 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
> (Alan Morgan) wrote:
> >In article <>,
> >JSH  <> wrote:
> >>On Aug 22, 7:39=A0pm, Joshua Cranmer <> wrote:
> >>> JSH wrote:
> >>> > The Internet still uses public key encryption.

>
> >>> Public key encryption does not equal RSA or other factoring. As I've
> >>> said before, there's elliptic curve; there are other even more secure
> >>> algorithms.

>
> >>> > If P=3DNP, then a polynomial time solution is possible for factoring
> >>> > meaning that public key encryption is no longer viable as a security
> >>> > system.

>
> >>> No, it just means you have to keep bumping up key sizes every few years.

>
> >>Not with anything that would follow from my research.

>
> >>If what I call surrogate factoring is viable then public key

>
> >>People could literally crack public keys in seconds on a desktop,

>
> >Depends on the key size and on the nature of the algorithm.  If
> >factoring turns out to be O(n^5000000) then P=NP, but I don't see
> >that causing many practical problems.  Even if it is something more
> >tractable you can just crank the key size through the roof.

My research approach to factoring has been towards finding something
that would be faster than public key use, which I'm worried now can be
achieved--if the research is correct.

So, regardless of the size of the public key, it could be factored
faster than it could be used.

> >Alan

>
> Or switch from RSA-Public Key to El Gamal-Public Key.  There are many
> different versions of Public Key, of which only a subset depend on the
> difficulty of factoring.
>
> rossum

But if P=NP then there are polynomial time solutions out there for ANY
of them.

That's why I think the research community has resisted any claims of
proof of P=NP, for political and economic reasons, so that people
would use these systems without fear that down the line--out of the
blue--they could be completely cracked.

Possibly they have believed like the poster Alan Morgan that even if
factoring can fall to a polynomial time solution, it'd be a very slow
one, so they can rationalize their behavior as not being threatening
to security.

In considering my own latest research with the optimal path engine,
however, if it is correct then they are very, very, very wrong, and if
P=NP then super fast algorithms are possible that would make one way
systems non-viable.

That could have military implications as well if I'm reading some info
correctly that <gasp> the military has also thought to use one way
systems as well, though I'm not sure on that one, as I don't know
really what military agencies do for encryption.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 23, 2008
11. ### Joshua CranmerGuest

JSH wrote:
> Possibly they have believed like the poster Alan Morgan that even if
> factoring can fall to a polynomial time solution, it'd be a very slow
> one, so they can rationalize their behavior as not being threatening
> to security.

You seem to be missing one key fact about NP-complete algorithms. Any NP
problem may be convertible to an NP-complete problem, but the conversion
is typically expensive.

Here's an example. I wrote a Turing machine to add two numbers. Five
state, four symbol. It takes O(3*n lg n) (where n is the number of bits
of the larger number) (the constant may be higher, I did the math well
over a year ago and I never checked it) steps and uses up O(2*n) slots
(I'm throwing in some constants here).

By Cook's Theorem, the SAT query will then O(30*n^2 lg n + 15*n lg n)
variables and a few hundred times that number of clauses, let's say 100.

Transforming to clique, we get the multiplication of these two number of
nodes and a triangular (i.e. 1/2n^2) number of edges for nodes. Up to
O(3000*n^4 lg n) nodes/O(4500000n^8 lg^2 n) edges.

Converting to vertex cover just takes the complement of the graph, so
node size stays the same and the edge size should still stay roughly the
same size.

We now construct a graph with the node size that is twice the number of
nodes times the average degree, which should be about N/2 by this point,
or another triangular relationship, plus the number of edges, so that
we get to about O(9e6*n^8 lg^2 n) nodes. The number of edges by this
point becomes too difficult to explain, but, naturally, it's even larger.

This graph we solve for the existence of a directed Hamiltonian circuit;
triple the number of nodes and make the number of edges equal to 2 *
old_node + old_edge for an undirected Hamiltonian circuit.

So far, everything was from Karp's paper; since he doesn't mention TSP
as NP-complete, I'm shifting to another resource for the TSP graph
construction.

Here, we keep the node graph and make each edge 1 if it exists in our
previous graph or 2 if it didn't (so the edges from the last part don't
matter).

So, even if we had an O(|V|^5) algorithm for generic TSP with a low
constant, our small O(3*n lg n) algorithm becomes
O(1.4e37*n^40 lg^10 n) if we attempt to use the algorithm based on the
various proofs of NP-completeness. Remember, this is only a 5-state,
4-symbol Turing machine.

Also, this doesn't take into account the actions you have to take to
*unroll* all the conversions.

Finally, these are based on reductions of *decision* problems, but
actually solving it is a different class of problem. I believe the
function problem equivalents should have identical reductions, though.

My tortured point is this: most proofs that an algorithm is NP-complete
do so by taking a pre-existing NP-complete algorithm and roughly
squaring its complexity (or worse!). So even though the algorithm is
polynomial, since it's been forced through many successive stages of
conversion, it becomes intractable.

So, here's my challenge to you: show us how to construct a graph such
that it's TSP solution factors the number.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Joshua Cranmer, Aug 23, 2008
12. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 23, 4:52 pm, Tim Smith <> wrote:
> In article <g8pn1r\$>,
>   (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>
> > Depends on the key size and on the nature of the algorithm.  If
> > factoring turns out to be O(n^5000000) then P=NP, but I don't see
> > that causing many practical problems.  Even if it is something more

>
> I thought that it wasn't known exactly what complexity class integer
> factorization is in, and so a polynomial time algorithm for it would not
> imply P=NP.  Have I missed a development here, or am I misremembering?

That is the stated position but I found it odd, so when I had
indications that integer factorization had a simple solution I went to
TSP, to see.

And the same technique of additional degrees of freedom gave me an
algorithm.

And I saw the same denial I'd seen with all my research, from prime
counting to factoring, so I discounted it.

I now believe that class issues have to do with some people deciding
ahead of time what they wish to believe and then daring the world to
do different.

We are now watching a changing of the world order which I have feared
and the denial is still there.

If you people succeed the United States will no longer be the dominant
country in the world.

I am still hopeful that we can at least avoid a nuclear event.

But I'm running out of ideas for how to stop you.

But you are confident to the end, and as convincing as always, and so
many people seem ready to follow you over the cliff, even now as they
lose their houses and livelihoods, as in the past that is what worked.

But it's a new world.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 24, 2008
13. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 24, 5:59 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <> wrote:
> JSH <> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > If you people succeed the United States will no longer be the dominant
> > country in the world.

>
> > I am still hopeful that we can at least avoid a nuclear event.

>
> > But I'm running out of ideas for how to stop you.

>
> Well, no wonder.  Your heart's probably not in it.
>
> Used to be that the threat we faced was the end of humanity itself.
> Now, it's just a power struggle between nations.  How dull and
> parochial.
>
> Frankly, it must be a letdown.  Back in the day, you faced a way
> bigger and more ominous threat.  With space aliens, too.

I've been solving problems.

Thankfully, the rest of the world is not quite as out of it as people
in the United States and Britain.

So the threats have diminished in size.

But now I'm fighting the smaller task of saving my own country, and it
is getting to be a more desperate one, with time running out.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 24, 2008
14. ### Alan MorganGuest

In article <>,
Tim Smith <> wrote:
>In article <g8pn1r\$jk\$>,
> (Alan Morgan) wrote:
>
>> Depends on the key size and on the nature of the algorithm. If
>> factoring turns out to be O(n^5000000) then P=NP, but I don't see
>> that causing many practical problems. Even if it is something more

>
>I thought that it wasn't known exactly what complexity class integer
>factorization is in, and so a polynomial time algorithm for it would not
>imply P=NP. Have I missed a development here, or am I misremembering?

No, I'm just wrong :-(

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Alan Morgan, Aug 24, 2008
15. ### John W KennedyGuest

Christian wrote:
> I hate it to say but I am no longer open minded about the stuff JSH
> proposes and no longer willing to read any more bullocks here.

Once, one of the master Okami's students took a railroad journey across
America. At a small stop in Kansas, the train halted to take on water,
and the student got out to examine the local fauna. Seeing a steer, he
walked up to it, and said, "Do you have Buddha-nature?" The creature
replied "Moo?" At that moment, the student was enlightened.

--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

John W Kennedy, Aug 25, 2008
16. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 25, 10:47 am, John W Kennedy <> wrote:
> Christian wrote:
> > I hate it to say but I am no longer open minded about the stuff JSH
> > proposes and no longer willing to read any more bullocks here.

>
> Once, one of the master Okami's students took a railroad journey across
> America. At a small stop in Kansas, the train halted to take on water,
> and the student got out to examine the local fauna. Seeing a steer, he
> walked up to it, and said, "Do you have Buddha-nature?" The creature
> replied "Moo?" At that moment, the student was enlightened.

But maybe at the end of it, all humans are just dumb cows.

Will the species ever really get off this planet? Or will it boil
itself alive with global warming?

Will any of you have even the slightest clue of ultimate reality?

Or will you pride yourself on the emotion of belief without ever
knowing if you actually know anything solid at all, but maybe useful
fictions?

How do you know that everything you've ever been told isn't a lie?

You could be in a simulation of my creation, computer programs
convinced they are in a complex world because to you the richness you
see around you seems so great, when that is about the limitations of

When in my world I can actually fly.

You people have no solid ground.

Because if that is true, then no matter what you do, no matter what
you say, how you live, how you love or believe you think, at any
moment I can simply flip a switch.

End.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 26, 2008
17. ### JSHGuest

On Aug 22, 5:35 pm, JSH <> wrote:
> Turns out that there is a lag between pickup of any revolutionary idea
> and its presentation.
>
> I have research into the factoring problem which I think is kind of
> good, though I didn't actually finish an algorithm as I decided it was
> too dangerous.  Gist of that research was to consider two congruences
> where mathematicians typically consider one:
>
> x^2 = y^2 mod p
> z^2 = y^2 mod T
>
> where T is the target composite to be factored and p is an odd prime
> that I call a helper prime as it's just there to help you factor T.  I
> solved out the problem with a couple of additional variables as one of
> my key problem solving techniques involves adding in extra variables,
> or degrees of freedom as physics people like to say (I think as I'm a
> physics person).
>
> If I'm right then it turns out that I don't actually have to finish
> out the research but the time lag until someone does, if I'm right,
> would be anywhere from 6 months to 2 years which is kind of a W.A.G.
> but I think it's roughly correct.
>
> Now more recently I came up with an algorithm which I think solves the
> Traveling Salesman Problem and in so doing proves that P=NP, as
> naturally, from thinking I have a break on the factoring problem, I'd
> go to TSP looking to apply the same type techniques against it!
>
> And doing so I came up with two travelers where one is going backwards
> in time and you multiply the costs along legs times the distance
> between the two travelers to figure out the total cost of a path and
> pick the least cost path, using a global variable.
>
> Now THAT algorithm is a couple of weeks old but I've given a complete
> algorithm, so that should speed things up, so I'd estimate that it'd
> take from one month to a year before it's picked up somewhere in the
> world if it is correct.
>
> Which leaves me with nothing to do but wait.

The short of it is that they blocked everything.

I first went for "pure math" and when I had proofs there I was blocked
by a simple refusal of mathematicians to acknowledge the results, so I
branched out.

I created Class Viewer. I focused more towards concrete results, like
trying to popularize my prime counting function. I created a
definition of mathematical proof.

I worked on factoring and finally came to TSP, and I've realized that
I'm dealing with a situation where there is an absolute refusal to
acknowledge my research.

And the only saving grace is knowing that as the line of humanity, its
direction, moves against knowledge, things get worse.

But it's a class war and back in Old England if the nobility ever
faced a situation where it was either end their class system or have
their entire world suffer annihilation, I think they would have
everyone die.

These people appear to be set on not letting anything through.

The US and Britain are economic powers so flows of money had to be re-
routed around them, and competing currencies to the US dollar and
pound were needed.

Because my analysis has always been that presented with a situation
where the lies that they had turned from class structures to
democracies and middle class ways were outed that the US would
initiate World War III and try to annihilate the world versus allowing
a truly free society.

So then, what would the solution be given that assessment?

How do you de-nuke nuclear powers?

Good question.

James Harris

JSH, Aug 26, 2008
18. ### Alan MorganGuest

In article <>,
JSH <> wrote:

>I worked on factoring and finally came to TSP, and I've realized that
>I'm dealing with a situation where there is an absolute refusal to
>acknowledge my research.

On the contrary, there were quite a few people on this newsgroup who
explored your ideas, tested them against various configurations, wrote
test harnesses, and ultimately found your ideas wanting (this was true
on sci.math as well. One person actually managed to get a paper from
the discussion that ensued when your ideas were kicked around, IIRC).
You, on the other hand, won't implement and test your algorithm because
it will start WWIII or crash the world finanical markets or cause bad
adult acne or whatever it is you think. The "absolute refusal" is
coming from you.

Alan
--
Defendit numerus

Alan Morgan, Aug 26, 2008
19. ### John W KennedyGuest

JSH wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:47 am, John W Kennedy <> wrote:
>> Christian wrote:
>>> I hate it to say but I am no longer open minded about the stuff JSH
>>> proposes and no longer willing to read any more bullocks here.

>> Once, one of the master Okami's students took a railroad journey across
>> America. At a small stop in Kansas, the train halted to take on water,
>> and the student got out to examine the local fauna. Seeing a steer, he
>> walked up to it, and said, "Do you have Buddha-nature?" The creature
>> replied "Moo?" At that moment, the student was enlightened.

>
> But maybe at the end of it, all humans are just dumb cows.
>
> Will the species ever really get off this planet? Or will it boil
> itself alive with global warming?
>
> Will any of you have even the slightest clue of ultimate reality?
>
> Or will you pride yourself on the emotion of belief without ever
> knowing if you actually know anything solid at all, but maybe useful
> fictions?
>
> How do you know that everything you've ever been told isn't a lie?
>
> You could be in a simulation of my creation, computer programs
> convinced they are in a complex world because to you the richness you
> see around you seems so great, when that is about the limitations of
>
> When in my world I can actually fly.
>
> You people have no solid ground.
>
> Because if that is true, then no matter what you do, no matter what
> you say, how you live, how you love or believe you think, at any
> moment I can simply flip a switch.
>
> End.

Well.

I had only intended a bit of silly wordplay anent Christian's
substitution of "bullocks" for "ballocks", but I seem to have hooked a
much bigger fish that I had set out my bait for. Can we all agree now
that JSH is simply delusional, killfile him, and let the matter go?
Frankly, I have to deal with enough newsgroups already where someone
thinks he's God.
--
John W. Kennedy
Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of
incompetence and criminality.

John W Kennedy, Aug 26, 2008
20. ### Joshua CranmerGuest

JSH wrote:
> I first went for "pure math" and when I had proofs there I was blocked
> by a simple refusal of mathematicians to acknowledge the results, so I
> branched out.

If you're talking about your result with the rings that you discussed
with the notable professor, from what you have told us of your actions
with said professor, I get the inclination that he didn't have the heart
to tell you that the key points of your work were factually incorrect.

> I worked on factoring and finally came to TSP, and I've realized that
> I'm dealing with a situation where there is an absolute refusal to
> acknowledge my research.

I, as well as numerous others, have looked at the algorithm and found it
wanting. The basic innovation seems... pointless, insufficient, but I'm
willing to accept that it might work. Yet it doesn't. Both algorithms,
and your extensions thereof, have been refuted by counterexamples.
Patricia gave you a program to test stuff with, and I extended it to be
easier to test (and am letting you use it).

Extrapolating from your factoring work to elsewhere, you seem to
generate an algorithm, other people show you it doesn't work, you refine
it a little, it still doesn't work, and then people give up when it
becomes clear that you are not going to put any work into attacking it.
At that point you declare it to be correct and are then surprised to
discover that people don't accept this fact. Read the story of the
little boy who cried wolf again, it's very similar.

To put it in perspective, it's like someone having a proof that 2 + 2 is
five, and then complaining when no one accepts it (equivalently, I could
cite you two separate "proofs" that 1 = 2).

> But it's a class war

Since when did class become involved? You can't be talking about classes
in terms of socioeconomic status. I'm assuming you referring to academic
status as a form of class, but, then again, I doubt anyone here or in
sci.math (or other newsgroups) would have the power to block publication
you have absolutely no support of that claim.

> The US and Britain are economic powers so flows of money had to be re-
> routed around them, and competing currencies to the US dollar and
> pound were needed.

And your point is? If you're trying to paint the euro has having been
created primarily as a counterpart to the USD, GBP, and yen (forgot that
one, didn't you), you have no insight into European history. The euro
was logical as the Europe harmonized economic systems, dating back
mostly to almost immediately post-WWII. May I recommend a course in
recent European history?

> Because my analysis has always been that presented with a situation
> where the lies that they had turned from class structures to
> democracies and middle class ways were outed that the US would
> initiate World War III and try to annihilate the world versus allowing
> a truly free society.

You should really talk to Dr. Mehran Basti on sci.math. He knows
solutions but doesn't seem to understand international affairs, and you
seem to be an international affairs major-cum-mathematician in search of
a solution.

<sarcasm>
I didn't know a mathematics degree was such good preparation for
international affairs (or domestic, for that matter)!
</sarcasm>

I could rebut for hours on end, but that just gets way too off topic.
Cut your philosophy and stick to the matters at hand, i.e., your
algorithms. Unless you're trying to make everyone's kill-list.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Joshua Cranmer, Aug 26, 2008