It looks like I made a fixable mistake: P = NP is still true, but it is actually based P = DTIME(O(n^2)), not P = DTIME(O(n^1)) . I am still working out the details; although I really object to the CIA having harassed me, one of the key benefits that damages CIA and aids my level of secrecy is that being bothered impairs my ability to be precise but not my ability to be intuitive. Thus, I can occasionally make unintentional small mistakes regarding claims that I can and do assert to be true without meaning to state falsehoods. When I later fix these mistakes, it becomes difficult for CIA analysts to tell how my ideas really work or how they were developed--my mistakes are not predictable, I assert, and the nature of them may mislead analysts as far as understanding my innovation. In short, you have gotten yourselves lost on a wild goose chase, due to your incessant unethical behavior--great.

If I find a way to show that P = DTIME(O(n^1)) after all, I will not definitely update anyone on this fix. It might still be possible.

I am still not sharing the (easy) solution to PSPACE = PH right now. For those who don't already know: Yes, this implies that P = PSPACE.

Also, regarding my fourth factorization algorithm...I will probably not sell it, but will agree to withhold it from publication for some number of months for a firm to which I may sell my cryptography ideas. That way, I can publish it and allow all firms to do very excellent file compression easily, thwarting some of their competitors that have displeased me by not being open to doing business with me, especially Apple and also Amazon (I will likely still be customers of these firms, though). The idea is to wait for the firms that acquire my IP to introduce new cryptography software to the world so that a publication of an algorithm that would break RSA/Diffie-Hellman/etc. would not damage the world.

I will likely write some code and supply a potentially purchasing firm with a factored RSA number at the appropriate time.

On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-5, DV wrote:
> It looks like I made a fixable mistake: P = NP is still true, but it is actually based P = DTIME(O(n^2)), not P = DTIME(O(n^1)) . I am still working out the details; although I really object to the CIA having harassed me, one of the key benefits that damages CIA and aids my level of secrecy is that being bothered impairs my ability to be precise but not my ability to be intuitive. Thus, I can occasionally make unintentional small mistakes regarding claims that I can and do assert to be true without meaning to state falsehoods. When I later fix these mistakes, it becomes difficult for CIA analysts to tell how my ideas really work or how they were developed--my mistakes are not predictable, I assert, and the nature of them may mislead analysts as far as understanding my innovation. In short, you have gotten yourselves lost on a wild goose chase, due to your incessant unethical behavior--great.
>
> If I find a way to show that P = DTIME(O(n^1)) after all, I will not definitely update anyone on this fix. It might still be possible.
>
> I am still not sharing the (easy) solution to PSPACE = PH right now. For those who don't already know: Yes, this implies that P = PSPACE.
>
> Also, regarding my fourth factorization algorithm...I will probably not sell it, but will agree to withhold it from publication for some number of months for a firm to which I may sell my cryptography ideas. That way, I can publish it and allow all firms to do very excellent file compression easily, thwarting some of their competitors that have displeased me by not being open to doing business with me, especially Apple and also Amazon (I will likely still be customers of these firms, though). The idea is to wait for the firms that acquire my IP to introduce new cryptography software to the world so that a publication of an algorithm that would break RSA/Diffie-Hellman/etc. would not damage the world.
>
> I will likely write some code and supply a potentially purchasing firm with a factored RSA number at the appropriate time.

(I think it would thwart Microsoft, too; my analysis is that consumers wouldn't want to buy new computers as much or store data in the cloud as much, since compression would make file storage extremely cheap.)