Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

From: Douglas A. Gwyn (DAGwyn_at_null.net)
Date: 01/22/05 

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:50:10 -0500

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> And you really can't be as stupid as you're playing here, as remember
> quantum factoring techniques?
> They factored 15, and made headlines.

Quantum computing is so technologically challenging
that even a "toy" implementation that really works
was newsworthy. The same would be true for the first
vacuum triode, the first germanium point-contact
transistor, the first MASER, etc. All these are
"proofs of the concept" and the expectation is that
since the idea has been shown to really work, the
details can be refined to provide improved technology
as time goes on.

The problem with all the factoring methods you have
so far posted is that they don't work even in "toy"
implementations. There is always some crucial gap
that never gets filled. We already know for sure
how to program universal factorization algorithms
that *do* always produce correct results, but they
run very slowly for large input values (that are
the product of two large primes, for example). If
you want genuine acclaim, you must show a single
*definite* method (algorithm) that (1) works
correctly for a large fraction of randomly chosen
large inputs and (2) works faster for large inputs
than other known correct factoring methods. So far,
you haven't exhibited such an algorithm.

Undr the circumstances, your complaints about not
being appreciated sound quite delusional. Why
*should* you be appreciated? It's not hard to come
up with incorrect, inefficient factoring methods.

Relevant Pages
Loading