Innovation, my TSP algorithm and factoring, timelines

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

  1. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    dead-end path. Your surrogate factoring algorithm (AIUI) allows the
    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
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    > dead-end path. Your surrogate factoring algorithm (AIUI) allows the
    > 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
    #3
  4. 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
    #4
  5. JSH

    Junoexpress Guest

    > 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
    #5
  6. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    encryption is dead.

    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...

    Seems to contradict your claim of what I must do.

    > > 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
    #6
  7. JSH

    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
    #7
  8. JSH

    Alan Morgan Guest

    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
    >encryption is dead.
    >
    >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
    #8
  9. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    #9
  10. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    > >>encryption is dead.

    >
    > >>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
    #10
  11. 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
    #11
  12. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    #12
  13. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    #13
  14. JSH

    Alan Morgan Guest

    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
    #14
  15. 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
    #15
  16. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    your programming.

    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
    #16
  17. JSH

    JSH Guest

    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
    #17
  18. JSH

    Alan Morgan Guest

    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
    #18
  19. 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
    > your programming.
    >
    > 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
    #19
  20. 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
    of something. And please, don't just spit back your retort about SWJPAM,
    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
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    651
  2. JSH
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    887
    Patricia Shanahan
    Jul 27, 2008
  3. JSH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    389
  4. JSH
    Replies:
    92
    Views:
    1,903
  5. Trans

    design timelines

    Trans, Nov 15, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    91
    Robert Dober
    Nov 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page