Re: Quadratic residue method for finding primes

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>>jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>>
>>>none wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>jshsucks@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've already taken my idea of focusing on n^2 - r to get a result
>>>>>>>related to Goldbach's conjecture, which can be found on my blog. I've
>>>>>>>decided not to post it on Usenet for now, as I'm less and less thrilled
>>>>>>>with reply quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You decided not to post it to usenet so that you can pretend that it is
>>>>>>correct and important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about the posts from a few days ago where you had this great proof
>>>>>>relating to primes, and you dared anyone to post a counterexample. You
>>>>>>stated that no one could since you had a proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I then posted a counterexample, and several other people did as well.
>>>>>>The you were caught in yet another lie. And yet another great discovery
>>>>>>of yours was blown apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you weren't so lazy and actually checked your conjectures before
>>>>>>boasting that you have a proof, you wouldn't look quite as foolish.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>See what I mean? Yet another poster from sci.math coming over to here.
>>>>>
>>>>>Repy quality from that group is abysmal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>James Harris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, people *are* allowed to subscribe to more than one group. And the
>>>>poster's point ( that all too often counterexamples to your "proofs" are
>>>>found within a matter of minutes) is completely true.
>>>>"Out of the box" thinking can sometimes lead to advances, in maths and
>>>>other fields, but it is not guaranteed to do so... so keep thinking,
>>>>James, but if you don't check your results carefully before posting,
>>>>then don't be surprised if people find mistakes in them.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am talking about deliberate stalking with posters who NEVER post on
>>>sci.crypt except to come over and try to distract from what I'm saying,
>>>who are regular posters on the sci.math newsgroup.
>>
>>There you go again, leaping to conclusions that are not supported by
>>reality (your life story, eh). It just so happens that I read several
>>newsgroups - of which sci.crypt is one - daily. I read these groups
>>whether you post to them or not, and I rarely post, unless it's in
>>response to some hurting unit who hasn't a clue!
>>
>>Don't believe me? Do a google search on my name and find out! I must
>>warn you though, some clown also goes by my monicker, and it seems that
>>most of the hits are for him.
>>
>><JSH sniveling snipped>
>>
>>>Consider this area as an example where I'm focusing on
>>>
>>>n^2 - r
>>>
>>>with r a non-square as I'm focusing on interesting features of
>>>quadratic residues for finding primes, which could be really important
>>>to finding large primes, but the sci.math'ers come over to talk basic
>>>info about quadratic residues that anyone who picks up an introductory
>>>text on the subject will find is information already known.
>>
>>Yes, I talked about very basic mathematical concepts which you didn't
>>understand correctly (how else do you explain your ignorance in regard
>>to quadratic residues). This basic mathematics was exactly the subject
>>of your original post in this thread, so why wouldn't I talk about it?
>>Specifically, due to your poor understanding of said basic mathematics,
>>I wasn't sure exactly what you were yaking about. So I posed a few
>>questions for clarification, which Arturo, using his amazing JSH
>>language translation skills, was able to show me exactly how trivial
>>your post was!
>>
>>
>>>Creativity can inspire hatred.
>>
>>So does an ignoramus who thinks he's creative!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>James Harris
>>>
>>
>>Bob Terwilliger
>
>
> And now you can see the sci.math'ers true colors.
>
> He calls my ideas trivial, and also stoops to calling me an ignoramus.

This is like talking to a 10 year old! Oh no, now I've done it... I've
done stooped to hurtling yet another insult at you: you have the
mentality of a 10 year old! How can I make such a bold assertion you
ask? Well, read on!

First, it was you who posted the trivial math, as you've already
admitted (I do see the humor in you being too stupid to realise that
you've admitted it though - read on... all will be revealed). I had a
hunch at what I thought you were yammering about, but before giving
further thought to your tripe, I thought I'd get clarification. Arturo
was kind enough to answer my queries, and he did it in such a way that I
didn't even have to expend thought on whether your 'GRAND INSIGHTS' were
valid or not... they are valid, but utterly trivial!

Don't believe me, go to your first post in this thread and read! Here
you make several claims, all of which essentially hinge on the following
observation:

----------
If p is an odd prime that divides n^2 - 2, then 2 is a quadratic residue
modulo p.
----------

Is the above accurate or what? Ya ya, I know, you had a little more, but
is this not essentially the beginning of your post?

YOU DID CLAIM THIS DIDN'T YOU?

Anyway, here's why it's trivial (and again, that you don't see this as
trivial, even after seeing Arturo's post...):

p is an odd prime that divides n^2 - 2
-> n^2 - 2 = p*k for some integer k
-> n^2 == 2 mod p
-> 2 is a quadratic residue mod p

NOW, IS THIS TRIVIAL OR NOT? Perhaps in your book it's not... fine! In
my book though, this is trivial. Maybe you should visit my first post in
this thread to see the definition of quadratic residue. That ought to
convice you (well, any reasonable person anyways).

>
> It's hatred. These people post out of hatred working to convince
> others that none of my ideas are of value, but they do things like work
> together as a group to email a math journal that dares publish a paper
> of mine.
>
> They work so hard to convince others that my ideas are all crap, which
> doesn't explain their dedication in working so hard to convince people
> such that it requires dozens of people--literally--from the sci.math
> newsgroup who seem to have this as a job based on their posting rate,
> and remember, there are also webpages including the website Crank.net
> maintained by, yup, a former sci.math regular.

Again, reality does not support your assertion here. I feel safe in
assuming that you include me in this 'group' of those who are making it
difficult for you to "get the word out". Well, if you look over this
thread's history you will see that you replied to a post of mine, where
I made no reply to you, though in your reply you gave me plenty of
fodder! How do you explain this James? What's my motivation for not
responding to a 'JAMES HARRIS' post, especially one bursting with prime
JSH-isms?

Well, I won't make you ponder any longer... You are nothing to me, and I
simply don't care enough about you to point out all your brain-farts. I
find you comical, and I sometimes wonder what it would be like to have
your dementia! You must feel on top of the world, until someone points
out your idiocy (which is often)! But then, you recover somehow, telling
yourself that you are a "discoverer", blah, blah, blah. I honestly
believe that you consider this true. But I also honestly believe that
you must know that you're bullshitting, trying to pass off your
stupidity as "extreme problem solving". Who in the hell do you think is
buying that shit?

>
> We live in a world defined by its hatreds.

No, we live in a world where people are free to be people. When a person
sees an ignoramus make unfounded claims, time and time again, and said
ignoramus demonstrates no capicity to learn from his (or her) mistakes,
then the person may choose to interact with the ignoramus in a harsher
manner than usual. Welcome to the real world James!

You know, when I was young, my mommy would tell me that I was special
too. As I grew up, I realised that I really wasn't all that specical
(except in the sack... know what I mean? Oh, on second though, maybe you
don't).

Also, I like watching a good movie too, but I'm able to distinguish it
from reality... it is very apparent that you cannot do the same!

>
> So there are people who go after creativity in the math field.
>
> Are you really surprised?
>
> Trust them if you want, but they depend on your trust, to betray it.
>
>
> James Harris
>

Bob Terwilliger
Received on Mon May 1 02:03:53 2006