Re: Factoring problem, solved

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: 23 Jan 2005 08:09:36 -0800

tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Your behavior is puzzling. Explaining out the mathematical
> details
> > > > does not work with you people. If pushed, you will simply go
> into
> > > > blanket denial, if an argument is stepped out to the point that
> you
> > > are
> > > > forced to see--if you pay attention at all--that it is correct.
> > >
> > > It's not so much as people are denying your work as they are
> > > questioning the conclusions.
> > >
> > > You claimed to "solve factoring" then your claims turn out to be
> > false.
> >
> > No, they did not.
>
> Well you either solved it or you didn't. Since you can't factor
large
> numbers [>40 bits] I'd say it's safe to say you didn't solve it.
>

Do what makes you happy.

If you reply to me about *mathematics* as if you don't freaking
understand any of it, then I'm going to jump on you for being stupid.

Your argument applies to the Shor algorithm.

Before they were fully developed your arguments would apply to just
about any factoring method ever found.

I'm sure you wouldn't say it's safe to ignore every other factoring
method, so I think it safe to say you just don't know how mathematics
works, but just believe what you are told.

If you hear enough people talking about something as useful, or read
enough books saying it is, then you believe.

But you probably aren't a person with the ability to make any kind of
checks for yourself.

But you do talk a lot in posts on Usenet where you probably live out
some fantasy.

> > > You claimed to have turned this problem on it's head yet cannot
> > > produce even the trivial of factors in [e.g. say 128-bit
> composites].
> >
> >
> > I solved the factoring problem with a theory, and then did a basic
> > implementation to test that theory out.
> >
> > I knew the program I built wasn't up to the task of factoring
really
> > big numbers, but was perturbed when it failed with small numbers
when
> I
> > thought it should work with them.
>
> That's not a "solution" then. Trial division is a solution using
your
> logic. While technically true it isn't what people are thinking
about.
> A true polynomial time solution to factoring would be a "solution"
> worthy of proclaiming "factoring has been solved".
>

Well, yeah, it's definitely NOT a solution if it doesn't work!

And your comment about trial division is just a non-sequitur: it
doesn't follow.

You are clearly out of your depth and too stupid to just shut-up.

What I implemented DOES not work as it should to be called a solution
to the factoring problem, but the theory on which it's based has not
been shown to have ANY flaws.

There is theory, and there is implementation.

Ok, here's an example that might help your dumb-ass, as the physics was
around to build an atomic bomb long before one got built.

Understand?

Now someone like you, when the scientists wrote a letter to the
president of the United States warning that Germany was working on an
atom bomb, would have asked them what they had.

After all, they had a *theory* and reasons to believe an atom bomb
could be built, but not an actual bomb.

I can see you at Los Alamos, looking at the first experiments, and when
nothing worked trying to pull the plug claiming it couldn't work.

You have no clue about how real discovery is done.

> Your algorithm can't work on "big numbers" because it's really not a
> solution to the problem [at least not a new one].
>

Theoretically, it is.

You are clearly lost on theory versus application.

I have the theory, which I've worked through which proves I have solved
the factoring problem: theoretically.

It's like having the physics behind building an atom bomb.

Just because you have the theory, can you build a working bomb?

Probably not. For one thing you need certain materials.

Here it's not about needing something like plutonium, as in this case,
as it's in idea space, you need certain basic tools:

A computer that can handle large integers, code that can handle large
integers, the logic for pumping the factorizations through the
algorithm.

I'm curious enough to see your reply.

Can you understand how there can be a correct theory and a flawed
application?

That is, can you understand that unless you check the theory, you can't
call something wrong because you don't see an application proving it?

For instance, someone might try to build an atom bomb, only to have it
not go off, by your reasoning, they would have disproven the physics.

Do you get it? I'm curious as to whether or not you can understand
these concepts.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Factoring problem, solved
    ... I'm sure you wouldn't say it's safe to ignore every other factoring ... around to build an atomic bomb long before one got built. ... they had a *theory* and reasons to believe an atom bomb ... It's like having the physics behind building an atom bomb. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Update, factoring problem solved
    ... So I play the role of theoretician. ... Saying I must be the one to do both theory and experiment is like ... saying that in physics any good theoretician must also be able to test ... testing a factoring method which you claim can factor RSA-sized ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Gist of surrogate factoring theorem
    ... while the surrogate factoring ... > a difference of squares with your target. ... mathematics requirement for physics majors is algebra, calculus, ... of people with this view of mathematics. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Public Key, Symbolic Calculation
    ... Q is built up from finite fields? ... suggesting that factoring over algebraic number fields is easy. ... I have a vague feeling that Step 3 is easy, and that sufficient clues ... Just punching it into Maple doesn't give you a factorisation. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: The Truth About What The Palestinians REALLY Want
    ... Einstein's physics "Jewish" and so Germany didn't build an atom bomb. ... He forced pretty much every famous name in the Manhattan ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)