On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:54:03 -0400, Rick Decker <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >Tim Peters wrote: >>[...] >> >> 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 that what we interpret as obfuscation on James' part is actually >a consequence of the fact that his understanding is extremely shallow. >This is, I think, the reason that he thinks his "prime counting >function" is truly new and innovative--he really is incapable of even >the slightest bit of abstraction that to all mathematicians is as >natural as breathing.
Huh. Ya think?
Both you guys must be new here.
>> As usual, I couldn't make sense of his original writeup before you showed >> the correct result of completing the square wrt y first, at which point I >> could work backward from that to deduce what you thought James was trying to >> say. Also as usual, you got that right. Therefore :-) you must also know >> why he thinks this kind of approach _could_ yield something useful. >> >See above. The kind of self-editing we're accustomed to by inclination >and training is something he simply doesn't get. For example, a tiny bit >of thinking makes it obvious that no matter what collection of linear >equations one starts with, as long as they have a unique solution >the end result of the "small mountain of tedious manipulation" will >be the completely unsurprising T = g_1 * g_1, which we knew from the >start.