Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: bobbysim_at_gmail.com: "Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: Bryan Olson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: bobbysim_at_gmail.com: "Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:51:12 -0800
> Surrogate factoring is meant to beat the tactic of picking two hard
> primes to get a number hard to factor by allowing you to simply shift
> to a different number which you factor, the surrogate, to factor the
> original number, indirectly. The surrogate, of course, is not
> carefully picked to be hard to factor. But you do have to factor it,
> and it will be really big for a big target.
Who told you that the factoring problem (i.e. RSA) has anything to do with
numbers that are carefully picked to be hard to factor? That is not even a
correct statement of the factoring problem. If you can factor randomly
selected (not just carefully picked) RSA-sized numbers, then you have solved
the problem. And why do you think that your surrogate will be easier to
factor than the target? You never proved that.
> If so, then that's it. Problem solved.
I thought you said that you had already solved it.
> So then, why don't I just use my own wonderful theory to crack really
> big numbers?
>
> I need to factor really big T's.
And your really big T's are about as hard to factor as the original M's.
> And I just don't feel like trying until I have a handle on the theory.
So we should not hold our breaths?
> I figure I'll work out the theory first.
You claimed that you already did that.
> Now then, if someone wishes to argue with me on the mathematics, one
> thing they can do is attack the calculation showing the quadratic
> residue result.
You never explained what quadratic residues have to do with it.
> My guess is that it could take at most a month, but I figure it should
> have happened by now, so maybe the thing won't work, you know?
Yes, I know, the thing won't work.
> But, even if it doesn't work, I'm happy as the math is neat. I can
> write papers on what I already have verified.
But will any of your papers get published? What's up with your paper at the
Annals?
> It'd make a neat paper just to figure out why it doesn't work!!!
Nope. Far to boring to get published.
> But, then again, maybe no one will check, and no one will test just for
> the hell of it, and we're safe just because...you know?
Or maybe your idea is just crap?
- Next message: bobbysim_at_gmail.com: "Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: Bryan Olson: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: bobbysim_at_gmail.com: "Re: Reality check, surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
