Re: Surrogate factoring, a fascinating idea

From: Douglas A. Gwyn (DAGwyn_at_null.net)
Date: 06/11/04

  • Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Surrogate factoring, a fascinating idea" 
    Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:30:30 -0400

    James Harris wrote:
    > It IS a little problem, mathematically.

    I have to agree with him there.

    However "theoretically" unimportant, it still is important
    for getting Mr. Harris the public recognition that he so
    obviously craves. But in that case, the missing detail
    (choice of s) deserves whatever work it takes him to
    fill in.

    > But you people didn't do that and you in particular mainly called me
    > names.

    Don't mistake Tom StDenis for "you people". You should
    respond to the best criticism, not to the worst.

    > I've done all that I need to do mathematically to prove my case.

    What specifically *is* your case? If it is supposed to
    be that you have found a practical method of factoring
    large numbers, that has yet to be demonstrated. (Tell
    us how to efficiently find a workable value for s.)

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

    The idea of using the additional information (that the
    input number is known to have two factors) is not new;
    in fact I mentioned that as potentially exploitable
    many years ago, and I would be surprised if the same
    thought hasn't ocurred to many other people. What
    would be *useful* would be for you to explain step by
    step how you went from the general problem "find factors"
    to the particular algorithm/formulas. I.e. how do you
    apply your general theory to arrive at a solution to
    the particular problem. If you do have some deep theory
    then what is it? Can you express it as a theorem using
    standard mathematical terminology so that it can be
    evaluated and applied by others?

  • Next message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: Surrogate factoring, a fascinating idea"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Latest fuss, my apologies
      ... In sci.math James Harris wrote: ... Remember Justin, you may think you're important and smart, or that it ... I don't do research mathematics and I'm not trying to, ... the sets in which you're factoring and the logic of the arguments is ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?
      ... Now that the most recent mutation of surrogate "factoring" has been ... what will James Harris do next? ... how James will define a "non-trivial complex factor". ... Will he post drunken rants with references to the Hammer and ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: JSH: Enough venting, but funding is an issue
      ... Yeah, they're real jerks! ... They caused you to screw up ... factoring again! ... -- James Harris ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
      ... > turned upside down, and for most of you, what you know, what you've ... You were mistaken and you didn't solve "the factoring problem". ... broken encryption without leaving a trace. ... -- James Harris ...
      (sci.math)