Re: Basically a sieve method, relation to quantum

From: Michael Brown (see_at_signature.below)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:54:22 +1100

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Michael Brown wrote:
>> Michael Brown wrote:
>> [...]
>>> How do you get the original primes from the above factorisation? Or
>>> does j have to be specially chosen?
>>
>> From what I can gather, it's supposed to go something like:
>> b_i = factors of j^2 ( = 16 in this case)
>> f_i = factors of T (product squared minus j^2)
>>
>> b_1 = product of some subset of b_i
>
> It's a rational, typically a fraction.

OK, this wasn't made clear in your previous posts. I was basing my
assumptions off the post where you said "f_1, f_2, b_1 and b_2 are given
integers".

>> b_2 = -j^2 / b1
>
> It's a rational, typically a fraction.

Presumably still given by the relation?

>> f_1 = product of some subset of f_i
>> f_2 = T / f_1
>
> They are both integers.

I'm assuming this is an agreement with the definitions of f_1 and f_2.

>> A = some integer (not sure how to calculate this)
>
> It's value doesn't usually matter though it can intefere.
>
> Safest is to just set it to 1.
>
>> Then a possible factor is:
>> (b_1 f_2 + b_2 f_1 + 2 j^2) / A
>>
>> Since I'm not sure how to calculate A, I just calculated each
>> possibility mod each of the original primes to see if it was zero.
>> No such combination
>
> There's now way you calculated each possible as the b's are fractions.
>
> Are you saying you iterated through an infinite set?

This is why you get abused on usenet. It was clear from above that I was
treating b_1 and b_2 as integer, so obviously I was iterating through a very
finite set. If you want to be taken seriously by anyone, usenet or
otherwise, you should cut back on the "you are an idiot" style comments,
especially if it was your mistake in the first place (like you saying that
b_1 and b_2 were integers).

[...]
> Read the paper.
>
> See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sufactor/

I'll read it if you post it to a site that does not require registration to
view. Or if you email it to me.

[...] 

-- 
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basically a sieve method, relation to quantum
    ... > It's a rational, typically a fraction. ... this wasn't made clear in your previous posts. ... This is why you get abused on usenet. ... Michael Brown ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Undocumented Apollo configuration!
    ... R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow ... You must have missed my other> two-line posts, ... a little life unto itself. ... three months is a huge fraction of your experienced ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Great SWT Program
    ... with some fraction of your audience. ... enjoy that, like the idiots who start their posts with "begin", so OE users ... strange -- bugs aren't usually highly specific to one English word. ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: Can anyone recommend a solicitor
    ... > Todal's ISP certainly doesn't know what posts he reads. ... > news server, which takes a full feed of uk.*. ... > feed is read by me, what fraction is read by the other people who have ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Usenet problem?
    ... Usenet has been all but dead most of this ... and is down to a fraction of its normal activity as of Monday ...
    (comp.publish.prepress)
Quantcast