Re: Surrogate factoring, a fascinating idea

From: Tom St Denis (tomstdenis_at_iahu.ca)
Date: 06/11/04 

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:21:55 GMT

James Harris wrote:
>>I mean the average troll will claim things they can't prove [or backup
>>at least with anecdotal evidence]. You got that. The average troll
>>will result to changing the subject to avoid answerign the obvious
>>questions. You got that. But the average troll won't go out of their
>>way to minimalize the efforts of everyone else.
>
>
> It IS a little problem, mathematically.
>
> It's not my fault a few people said it was a hard problem and lots of
> other people went along.

Well if it's such a simple solution why are you so hesitant to
demonstrate it working? I'd think if I were sitting on a literal
money-making algorithm [hint RSA challenges are real!!!] I would go earn
myself some money.

> Consider, I started a few weeks ago with a different way to factor
> that clearly no one has ever seen before.

That's because so far your "algorithm" isn't complete. You have yet to
show a closed algorithm [e.g. a series of finite steps that completely
detail the process] that factors.

> By itself that fact should have been significant if you people were
> rational.

How so? You haven't demonstrated that your process works so why should
*I* care about it? It's *your* idea.

> Possibly your problem is you're taking this *personally* when the real
> issues are mathematical.
>
> I've done all that I need to do mathematically to prove my case.

Um if you think that you're clearly lacking a few years of education....

> I have a theoretical approach to factoring, which I think shows that
> factoring is NOT a hard problem as previously thought.

Wrong again buster. Your "algorithm" isn't complete and you have yet to
show the factoring of even trivial 9 digit numbers [that another person
posted].

How can you conclude that factoring isn't hard if you haven't even
factored what is though to be a hard number to factor?

Logic dictates that your conclusion is faulty.

> My presentation of that theory and my opinions about it may anger you,
> but that's not the whole world kid.

What theory? Algorithms and equations != theory. Theory is a body of
work comprised of assumptions [lemmas], observations, theorems and
proofs. Your posts have none of those features so it cannot be
considered theory.

> You need to try and get more objective: especially about postings from
> strangers on a public forum.

Why? You're not that unique from the vast number of other crackpots
that post wodnerful new-fangled algorithms here. In fact I know you
from sci.math where you repeatedly tried to solve the FLT and
continually failed to even comprehend the simplest of grade 12 math.

>>What I'm trying to say is grow up and find another way to amuse
>>yourself. You're never going to be taken seriously when you keep
>>posting with your ill-mannered lack of respect manner of fact tone. If
>>you're just trying to get a rise out of people you either have to be
>>more funny or less obvious. This blatant trollage is very tiresome.
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> Why do you care so much what *I* do? Who are you, super-parent? Are
> you trying to be parent to the world?

I'm trying to give you some helpful advice. Instead of wasting your
time trying to impress us with you gee-wow whiz-bang mathematics why
don't you actually achieve something real than brag about it?

> Instead you sound like a little kid worried that someone else might be
> getting more attention than you.

I get enough attention in my own venues. Sci.crypt is a *group*
discussion forum. I share my thoughst just like anyone else does here.

> The issues here are *mathematical* and it's not about your feelings,
> and it's not about how many people like what I'm saying.

No they're not because you haven't the foggiest clue about how to
seriously discuss an academic subject. To put things in perspective
talking to you about math is about as effective as talking to a 6yr old
about math. You like to write alot but none of it is meaningful while
at the same time you don't like to listen to what anyone else has to say.

Tom

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?
    ... It's commonly known as a the "factoring sieve" and Fermat showed that ... It is listed as "algorithm ... "factoring with sieves" on pp.389. ... > when it defies the mathematics. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Way too interesting
    ... And on this group, surprising even me, there is still the usual ... microscope ever built--a simple solution to the factoring problem ... To show that your algorithm really does work. ... like interesting mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: [OT] The PGP Signed Posts Farce
    ... ]>> They have to obey mathematics, and yes, there is every way to know. ... ]have to have an algorithm for solving p-complete problems in polynomial ... factoring numbers less than say 10^99. ... Being able to solve one finite problem ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: A very fast Fermat factoring algorithm
    ... > For my undergraduate thesis in mathematics I developed a factoring ... > algorithm which is identical to Fermat's factoring algorithm but about ... > 10^9 times faster. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
    ... > YOU are the people who said that factoring was a hard problem. ... It is a hard problem, ... contributors took the trouble to analyze your algorithm ... Because of such evidence, there is nothing irrational ...
    (sci.crypt)