Re: Surrogate factoring, update

From: Matthijs Hebly (heeb_at_iname.com)
Date: 07/11/04

  • Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Call for stego ideas" 
    Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 10:26:13 GMT

    James Harris wrote:
    > Matthijs Hebly <heeb@iname.com> wrote in message news:<hXUHc.98963$3N6.21454@amsnews05.chello.com>...
    >>James Harris wrote:
    >>>It's been a while since I mentioned surrogate factoring, and I'll
    >><znib>
    >>Maybe you should put your method to the test? Let your PC make a huge
    <znib>
    > Theoretical work can be VERY trying to many people. They want to see
    > THE RESULT and have most of the details nailed down and have
    > CERTAINTY.

    It can be trying to mathematicians too. Was it just a waste of time when
      Naom Elkies found out that:
    2682440^4 + 15365639^4 + 18796760^4 = 20615673^4 ?
    No, because then people could stop looking for a proof that
    x^4+y^4+z^4=t^4 doesn't have solutions for positive integers x,y,z,t,
    because this idea obviously turned out to be false.

    Then there's the fact that you're posting in sci.crypt, and not only in
    sci.math. In sci.crypt, people are very much interested in *practical*
    as well as theoretical work. Questions like "How much faster is your
    method", "Can you give us some practical examples", etc., are as
    important here as the theory. It's nice to know a certain new method to
    accomplish something takes a time a factor 10^200 less than an old
    method, but if this new method still takes 10^(10^38374646)) years given
    today's hardware, then it's nice to know but of no practical value to
    cryptography. So I repeat: if there's anything in your method (assuming
    you have one, which I cannot tell), then (at least in sci.crypt) give us
    an example of you factoring a huge composite using your method.

    > However, no matter how certain so much knowledge that is tossed about
    > today is today, way back there were people at the beginning who were
    > lost and looking, trying to figure out what was going on.
    They were amazed that e.g. 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2. People have been playing
    with numbers always. So why don't you want to do this with your method?
    Come on James, give us an example!

    > From small beginnings come human civilization itself.
    Then give us a small beginning of an example. Break RSA a *little*.
    Slightly factor a composite that's just a *little* huge. After that the
    rest of us will tell you whether you'll have reached human cilization or
    not.

    > Here and now though, there's this idea I'm tossing around, and it's at
    > the beginnings. Will it be a super idea, a potent idea? I'm not certain,
    > though I definitely think it's worth discussing.
    Break RSA. Then you'll have your discussion I'm sure.

    > Now I know for some of you that's not the answer you want. You want
    > certainty. You want things nailed down and a fully fleshed out
    > product or theory.
    Isn't that why mathematicians are looking for proofs? They e.g. wanted
    certainty too that x^n + y^n = z^n wouldn't have solutions for positive
    integers x,y,z,n with n>2.

    > Most ideas don't pass all the tests.
    I guess here in sci.crypt people are interested in practical tests,
    because cryptography has practical as well as theoretical aspects.

    Matthijs Hebly.

  • Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Call for stego ideas"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
      ... James Harris wrote: ... > Theoretical work can be VERY trying to many people. ... > CERTAINTY. ... Break RSA a *little*. ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
      ... >> Theoretical work can be VERY trying to many people. ... > because cryptography has practical as well as theoretical aspects. ... I KNOW that for many of you it can be frustrating to hear about an ... James Harris ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
      ... >> Theoretical work can be VERY trying to many people. ... > because cryptography has practical as well as theoretical aspects. ... I KNOW that for many of you it can be frustrating to hear about an ... James Harris ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
      ... > actually break RSA. ... Here and now though, there's this idea I'm tossing around, and it's at ... At the beginning, there's little certainty, much guessing, and not a ... James Harris ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Re: Surrogate factoring, update
      ... > actually break RSA. ... Here and now though, there's this idea I'm tossing around, and it's at ... At the beginning, there's little certainty, much guessing, and not a ... James Harris ...
      (sci.math)
    • Quantcast