On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 10:51:53 -0400, Rick Decker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >David C. Ullrich wrote: >> 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? > >You missed my point. Until recently I thought that it was James' >narcisism that motivated his jaw-dropping refusal to see that >there was nothing new in his prime-counting function. Now, though, >I have come to the view that he's lacking an important faculty >that all mathematicians have. It's pitiful, really.
I don't think I missed that point - I thought that the point you make was obvious. Sorry.
>> Both you guys must be new here. > >Hrrumph. Now you're playing the newbie card. I think I'll >contact the OSU administration.
Oh my gosh. Ok, never mind. You're absolutely right about everything. Thanks for the novel insight.