Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Randy Howard: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Next in thread: Bill Unruh: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:17:56 -0800
> Hey Harris wake up call! You got it even wronger this time. There are
> already enough factorization algorithms around. It actually is of no
> import that you may have come up with a new one. What matters is wether
> it is dramatically better in speed and ressources than the current best
> ones or not. So this time the mathematical proof of the correctness of
> the algorithm is a mere prerequisite. The obstacle standing between you
> and fame and fortune, is the lack of a working implementation. So far,
> it don't look good fer you mister. And no, whining won't be of help
> either.
Well, yes, a good implementation demo would help. That has not materialized
yet. But it would be good enough if he could even just rigorously prove that
his algorithm was sub-exponential, or even polynomial time. He has not done
that. In fact, he has never rigorously proved anything about Surrogate
Factoring.
- Next message: Randy Howard: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- Previous message: Charlie Gibbs: "Re: [Lit.] Buffer overruns"
- In reply to: guenther.vonKnakspott_at_gmx.de: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Next in thread: Bill Unruh: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
