Re: JSH: Dimini****ng concerns on factoring

On Jun 22, 9:55=A0pm, JSH <jst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:29=A0pm, Rotwang <sg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Jun, 04:17, JSH <jst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 7:01 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 22, 3:29 pm, JSH <jst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 22, 2:50 pm, mike3 <mike4...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Without a real demonstration the only assumption that can
reaso=
nably
> > > > > > be made is your claim Has No Substance To It!!!!!!
>
> > > > > Why? =A0What would a demonstration prove?
>
> > > > It would prove that you have something worthwhile.
>
> > > So what if I don't demonstrate with a factorization of a very large
> > > number? =A0What does that prove?
>
> > It proves that you don't learn from your mistakes.
>
> Yawn. =A0And you do? =A0If so, why are you replying to me now?
>
> If I could demonstrate with a large factorization I would have done
> it.
>
> I can't.
>

So you concede that your algorithm is not capable of doing this,
and so even if it works it is no better than conventional methods?
Thank you.

Concession accepted.