Re: Surrogate factoring, revisited
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 12/28/04
- Next message: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, revisited"
- Previous message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, revisited"
- Next in thread: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:48:08 -0800
> For some time now I've been exploring ideas having to do with what I
> call surrogate factoring, where you try to factor one number by instead
> factoring another, which I call the surrogate.
I cannot see how your concept can work. The big composites that are hard to
factor out-number the small composites that are easy to factor. If you
factor hard composites by factoring its matching easy to factor surrogate,
then would an easy composite relate to more than one hard composite? If yes,
then I see problems with that. Or is the easy to hard one-to-one? If it is
so, then there must be a large number of hard composites that have no
related easy composite. Then how do you know if the hard composite you sart
with has an easy related composite? This all sounds like a very poor idea
you have, James.
- Next message: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, revisited"
- Previous message: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, revisited"
- Next in thread: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, revisited"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|