How modular inverse reveals social problem

Back May 9th posted my method for calculating the modular inverse. A surprising find, represents a fundamental result in modular arithmetic, and is of course important in modular algebra. If asked if such a thing existed, am confident a pat answer would have been that if any other possible were available, would have been found long ago.

There were only two basic ways known to the world before that date to calculate the modular inverse besides brute force, where one is with use of extended Euclidean algorithm, and the other is done with Euler's theorem, where used a Wikipedia article as a reference. And you have plenty of ways around both of those where people have tried to speed things up, with good reason.

My approach will note here looks better fit for the computer age. Allows for optimal multi-threading out of the gate as just the first thing I noticed quickly without much research done on optimization.

Other basic methods literally have over a hundred years of people considering them, though am sure much more effort recently. Found out as was researching that a popular public key encryption approach involves calculating a modular inverse. My ideas might speed things up, dramatically. But don't know. Just reaching there.

Regardless is fundamental human knowledge which presumably would be welcomed.

I thought it might, but have enough history with certain behavior to be prepared if it did not. As the months went by realized I needed to be more direct about the situation, as there was no room for doubt.

Notice this result leaves no room to hide for people actually fascinated with numbers. By itself without my other evidence it is proof there is something wrong with the discipline of number theory, when not embraced with joy.

Is satisfying to be able to emphasize that there is no room for doubt. And while I believe the result is innocuous which frees me to push harder, without careful consideration from people who care for knowledge world governments cannot be so certain. The risk is not only unacceptable, it is against human interest. Fundamental results can quite simply, open doors.

How could things be this off where a major discoverer has to emphasize that people trying to ignore a major mathematical discovery, easily determined to be one in a fundamental area related to global security, could be hoping on an approach that has saved them before--silence?

Because human beings can do such things.

The math does not care.

We should though.


James Harris