On Tue, 6 Jun 2006 13:34:23 -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Rick Decker] <snip> > > What I don't understand is how anything other than that outcome could be > _hoped_ for here. No amount of rearranging and cross-substituting the > initial equations (whatever they may be) is going to yield new information, > and there's never a step that even requires the quantities to be integers > (as opposed to, e.g., arbitrary complex numbers). How can someone imagine > that insight into integer factorization could result from this insight-less > symbol-pushing?
I think it's clear. Mathematicians write proofs yeah? Mathematics is just manipulating symbols. Therefore is JSH manipulates enough symbols enough times he will get a proof.
Note that he normally starts his posts with a list of equations, and then manipulates them for a bit. There is no clear goal, or method, it's just mathematics after all i.e. insightless symbol-pushing.
If at first you don't succed, modify your starting equations a bit, maybe changing a plus to a minus. When you get really desperate, add another variable.
Just imagine how many different equations must have shuffled randomly around Erdos's or Shelah's notepads before they got lucky so many times.