Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 01/29/05
- Next message: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:25:51 -0800
> Well I'll admit that I've been feeling a bit depressed the last couple
> of days, as I had calculations showing at least 50% success with a
> rational x, and then I checked thoroughly and found that my method gave
> a LOT of rational x's, and wasn't factoring with most of them.
Oh... so when you claimed that you had the problem solved, you must have
been wrong? And those that doubted you were not liars?
> And then I realized that for most cases it gives you an x that has your
> target itself as the factor.
Oooops. Not very clever... not really beyond brilliant after all?
> I puzzled over that result, and realized that the math was too
> efficient in searching through rational solutions...
Oh I see, you realized that your math was just too efficient... that was the
problem all along... that is why it worked so badly...
> So I squared the target, and it factored.
You squared the target, and that helped! Hmmmmm.... try throwing in a few
trig functions too... It can't really hurt...
> Why? You need to understand quadratic residues to understand why.
Do you know what a quadratic residue is? You never explained how it relates
to your "work".
> Basically the probability was too high that it could get quadratic
> residues for both of my factors, so by squaring them, I forced the math
> to look for solution for those factors squared, making it more likely
> that it would fail for at least one, and it did.
Making it more likely that it would fail? I thought Surrogate Factoring
already failed sufficiently well.
> I have verified that the value of A is mostly irrelevant,...
I thought Surrogate Factoring was already mostly irrelevant...
> I'm still puzzling over the quadratic residues a bit...
I am not at all surprised.
, as it's not to
> That's the profoundly fascinating feature of this method, as infinity
> itself is checked for results!
Remarkable. Has Surrogate Factoring ever found infinity to be a factor of
any composite yet?
> And that is rigorously proven.
Yes, in classic James Harris style! You just make a claim and poof, you have
another proof.
> Well, infinity is kind of big...
That is the kind of deep insight we have all come to expect from you.
> So yeah, if you try to factor something not prime, and get no factors,
> square it.
And that somehow helps with your claim that the algorithm is efficient?
> and I'm going to work on settling down the probabilities, as I find it
> curious.
Keep us posted.
> Fun. Math is great.
Yes, it is fun. I wish you could experience it too.
- Next message: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: David Wagner: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
