Re: Surrogate factoring, update
From: Tom St Denis (tom_at_securescience.net)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 11:24:46 GMT
Matthijs Hebly wrote:
> 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.
He doesn't have to factor an RSA challenge number to get attention. What he
does have to do is sit down, properly document his approach, experiment
with it, check that the observations fit the documentation [e.g. running
time] and then present that.
See, James has a long history [specially in sci.math] of posting "his
ideas". Nobody hates him for having ideas. What they dislike is that he
never follows through with any of them. His repeated "proofs" of FLT which
were always based on his "latest ideas in algebraic numbers" [whatever that
means] were almost always shred to bits minutes after he posted them.
He's far from a scientist of any sort. He's just a jerk with a net
>> 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.
There is some truth to that but not quite as you meant. Theory is certainly
welcomed in this group. The difference is that what Bartoz and James
present as "theory" and what academia consider theory are two different
things. To them theory is "random assortment of ideas posted carelessly
with the demand of respect".
Like I've said a million times over I'd totally respect a newbie who [though
wrong or right] posted a well written paper presenting their new idea, why
they're presenting the new idea and what conclusions they drew from
Unfortunately you rarely see that. To a certain extent you can excuse a raw
newbie from not knowing better [heck I did the same] but really after
they've been told "hey that's not how things are done" they ought to
In James's case people just want him to put up or shut up because we *KNOW*
that his method isn't efficient [nor likely to work properly in all cases].
So putting that barrier out there is a way to get him to shut up.