Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
From: David Kastrup (dak_at_gnu.org)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Agent Zero: "How JBN blows your privacy, by Agent Zero"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Next in thread: Volker Hetzer: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:50:56 +0100
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> writes:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>> I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.
>
> Which probably means you checked the algebra, but
> not the underlying assumptions.
>
> I think we've adequately established you are more
> than competent at elementary algebra (as opposed to
> the abstract kind, which you deny even exists).
>
> But you haven't ever explained why there must always
> be a solution to your surrogate factoring problem. I
> think the disappointing results may be illustrating this
> part of the theory that you haven't checked: Does a
> solution always exist?
Obviously,
p*q = ((p+q)/2)^2 - ((p-q)/2)^2
so every product of two odd numbers is the difference of two squares.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Next message: glen herrmannsfeldt: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Agent Zero: "How JBN blows your privacy, by Agent Zero"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Next in thread: Volker Hetzer: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
