Harristotelian Logic

It seems odd that I need to remind that a theorem cannot be wrong.

So the surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) cannot be wrong.

Now the issue of how well it factors can be raised, but that's separate from it's "pure" validity as a theorem.

That's an important point as the SFT is a theorem unlike any other in that it is a general solution to the difference of squares.

No such solution has ever been given in human history.

I like pushing away from the factoring problem to focus on the SFT being a theorem because there I can talk about absolutes.

Working out factoring algorithms is a practical matter that can have a lot of reasons for variations in efficacy, including human error, or dumb implementation.

Now then, so what? What does it mean for the SFT to be perfectly right?

What does it mean for any mathematics to be perfectly right?

Here it's a bit of a social thing I think that I need to focus--on a math newsgroup--on the pure math aspect of the SFT.

Before there's the practicality, there is the perfection of a theorem.