Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 01/29/05
- Next message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Next in thread: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:41:06 -0800
> So yeah, if you try to factor something not prime, and get no factors,
> square it.
I already made fun of this, but I just wanted to be sure that I really
understood you here. I may be way off, because I often seem to get the wrong
idea of what you are really trying to say.... So here is my question: Lets
say that if you are trying to factor a big fat whopper composite, say an
RSA-2048. You suggest running it through your algorithm once, and if it
fails to get factors, you want to square the RSA-2048 to get super whopper
of a number. You take that super whopper number and run it through your
algorithm again? And you hint that this does not guarantee anything, it just
changes the probability of it working a bit. Is this really what you are
saying????????
And let me guess, you love gratuitously recursive programming.... So if the
super whopper gets no factors, your code calls itself to square it again and
take another run at it, but this time with cheese?
Even you should see how silly you are...
- Next message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Next in thread: fishfry: "Re: Surrogate factoring, out of the box"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
