Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe10.iad.POSTED!aa923de6!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.compression From: stan Subject: Re: Modulus, Factoring and Compressing random data References: <20086931.544.1327632761300.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prlv30> <25445276.18.1327695177390.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prez15> <16309604.72.1327709609752.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prmu37> <1309622.345.1327787969010.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prdh15> <6e569eac-b7a5-45ea-8439-3eb7f7920611@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <591cdbb1-deae-48c2-8b2a-f12d56593ca0@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com> <373cb831-1c69-4703-ab0f-36621b1f36e0@n8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <92d3e165-87d3-4f07-92c4-75753ec88e8d@s7g2000vby.googlegroups.com> <17045896.574.1328172705434.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqad38> <6a002f0c-ac1c-4a34-ac0e-656a435e7dda@pk8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Linux) Message-ID: Lines: 39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:35:04 UTC Organization: TeraNews.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:32:55 -0500 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.compression:1015 Ernst wrote: > On Feb 2, 1:09 am, Thomas Richter wrote: >> Second, this has nothing to do with all the "factorization" business >> here. The question was: "Is modulus reduction a new idea", and the >> answer is "no", by pointing to the literature, which was declined by the >> OP by simply failing to get the literature. This is pretty much a sign >> of "crank-ism". > > Hey no one claims it's a new idea you are flawed in you perception > there but I'm guessing you won't post a long post putting yourself > down for being "flawed." > > My question is has this method been discovered before. There is a > difference but you should be able to discern that. If not able to > discern then your worth as a Peer is in question. What pray tell is the difference between a "new idea" and a "method not discovered before"? >> What makes it so terribly hard just to get a good book on the >> fundamentals and read about them? It is not that any such reading could >> potentially destroy your brain... It just implies the risk that you >> might actually understand why many ideas are stupid, but doesn't render >> any *really* new ideas invalid at all. > > Perhaps some people know more than they are telling because it's no > fun to share here. What do you think of that? You don't really want help or even people to share; you seem to simply demand that people agree with you. > So I am a Friend of the Sciences not a Peer. You will be hard pressed to get much agreement with your personal, arbitrary definitions of science. The term is pretty well defined and doesn't match what you want.