Saturday, June 10, 2006
Surrogate factoring, dead idea
Last postings on this subject I was in dumb denial about the failure of my latest ideas with what I call surrogate factoring as I accused two posters of lying about the calculation.
I was wrong, they were right.
After several years of playing with this idea of looking for one factorization to pull out another, I've exhausted all the simple approaches—as I like to use basic algebra—that I can think of, and, yet again, as I've said this before, and then went after it again, I think that my surrogate factoring is is a dead idea.
The algebra always loops back to the number to be factored, with the factorization dependent on it, or you get very low odds of factoring.
It might make sense to most of you to just give up after years, and at the moment it makes sense to me. But it is a hobby, and I do play with very simple algebra, where I can still screw up, so it's possible down the line, I may be at it again.
And, oh yeah, consider that I use VERY SIMPLE ALGEBRA and routinely screw up, usually because I want something to be true when it isn't.
This factoring is practical in that people would be very interested if I succeeded, so the reality that I haven't comes up quickly because people do care about a practical answer.
In contrast, in "pure math" areas, some mathematician can get deluded with VERY COMPLEX IDEAS and want something badly, it goes to some reviewer who just needs to get through the tedium of a review, and if no one cares, why should anyone know of a major screw-up?
Truth is that when one person wants something badly, that person can convince himself or herself of things that are completely wrong.
And unless they have a strong reason to check—like in applied mathematical areas--people who look over such work can miss even glaring errors because it just is not that important to them, and they may even trust the person giving the information as brilliant.
I emphasize, people make mistakes. Look at how I can go on with simple algebra mistakes.
Computer checking is the only way to remove the human element.
It's the only way to protect from mathematicians who desperately want a solution, being checked by other mathematicians who want them to be right, in areas where there isn't a lot of money at stake like factoring, or the real world to tell what is correct, like in other applied mathematics.
Sure mathematicians LIKE the current system. Why shouldn't they?
If you knew your "colleague" aka buddy was going to be looking over your research, and in many ways had the final word, and as a result you could get thousands of dollars of research money, what's not to like?
Versus some heartless computer that will slash your "proofs" to dust.
What's not to like about the current system for today's "pure" mathematician?
I was wrong, they were right.
After several years of playing with this idea of looking for one factorization to pull out another, I've exhausted all the simple approaches—as I like to use basic algebra—that I can think of, and, yet again, as I've said this before, and then went after it again, I think that my surrogate factoring is is a dead idea.
The algebra always loops back to the number to be factored, with the factorization dependent on it, or you get very low odds of factoring.
It might make sense to most of you to just give up after years, and at the moment it makes sense to me. But it is a hobby, and I do play with very simple algebra, where I can still screw up, so it's possible down the line, I may be at it again.
And, oh yeah, consider that I use VERY SIMPLE ALGEBRA and routinely screw up, usually because I want something to be true when it isn't.
This factoring is practical in that people would be very interested if I succeeded, so the reality that I haven't comes up quickly because people do care about a practical answer.
In contrast, in "pure math" areas, some mathematician can get deluded with VERY COMPLEX IDEAS and want something badly, it goes to some reviewer who just needs to get through the tedium of a review, and if no one cares, why should anyone know of a major screw-up?
Truth is that when one person wants something badly, that person can convince himself or herself of things that are completely wrong.
And unless they have a strong reason to check—like in applied mathematical areas--people who look over such work can miss even glaring errors because it just is not that important to them, and they may even trust the person giving the information as brilliant.
I emphasize, people make mistakes. Look at how I can go on with simple algebra mistakes.
Computer checking is the only way to remove the human element.
It's the only way to protect from mathematicians who desperately want a solution, being checked by other mathematicians who want them to be right, in areas where there isn't a lot of money at stake like factoring, or the real world to tell what is correct, like in other applied mathematics.
Sure mathematicians LIKE the current system. Why shouldn't they?
If you knew your "colleague" aka buddy was going to be looking over your research, and in many ways had the final word, and as a result you could get thousands of dollars of research money, what's not to like?
Versus some heartless computer that will slash your "proofs" to dust.
What's not to like about the current system for today's "pure" mathematician?
# posted by James Harris @ 17:52 
