Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box
From: David Kastrup (dak_at_gnu.org)
Date: 01/29/05
- Next message: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Previous message: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Next in thread: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Reply: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Reply: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:35:05 +0100
jstevh@msn.com writes:
> 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.
>
> And then I realized that for most cases it gives you an x that has your
> target itself as the factor.
>
> I puzzled over that result, and realized that the math was too
> efficient in searching through rational solutions, so that it could,
> most of the time, find solutions such that the target itself was the
> factor of x, hence my problem.
>
> So I squared the target, and it factored.
Let me guess what the two factors it found were.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Next message: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Previous message: Anne & Lynn Wheeler: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Next in thread: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Reply: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Reply: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
