Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries
From: Mack (macckone_at_a_nospamjunk123_ol.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Larry Hammick: "PGP signature format"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Next in thread: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Reply: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:20:46 GMT
On 30 Jan 2005 10:06:32 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
[snip]
>
>See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sufactor/
It would be helpful if people could access your information without
subscribing.
[snip]
>My own assumption has been that for basically any j, with a few
>constraints, there would be SOME rational x that would work, I'm not
>seeing that with my test programs, which means either my programs
>aren't working right, or the theory is wrong.
>
>I prefer to worry about the theory, but I have to test it, so I also am
>fiddling with test programs.
The general consensus is your theory may work but it isn't
faster than other methods. At this point I am not even certain
your theory works. Although a method that will factor even 50%
of 1024 bit numbers in an hour or two would be a MAJOR
breakthrough, you have not demonstrated this.
[snip]
>To you people from the posts I can see, research is worthless unless
>you can demonstrate you have something better than anyone else has.
>
>That's bizarre, and is a Usenet kind of thing that some of you use to
>justify criticizing.
Nothing bizarre about it. No one would be interested in someone
who invented a plane today that only flew 200 feet at 20 mph.
Sure it might be fun to recreate one of the first flights but it
certainly isn't ground breaking.
>
>The reason it works is simple, if mainstream mathematicians weren't
>ignoring my research, then I wouldn't be bothering with Usenet, as you
>people are fringe.
>
>If my factoring research were at a certain level, like better than
>anything else out there, or at least as good as say, elliptic curve,
>then I wouldn't be on Usenet either, as then I could probably get
>someone to pay attention.
>
>So, by my posting on Usenet, I am proclaiming that I haven't gotten my
>research to a level that I can force interest from the mainstream,
>which allows posters on the fringe to endlessly criticize, without
>regard to the evidence.
If your method worked with even moderate sized numbers (say 256 bits)
50% of the time and had a relatively fast run time (say 1/4 of other
methods) that would be evidence you are on to something. As it is you
have offered no evidence that your method has the potential to do
this.
>
>The reality is that research can be in its infancy--not better than
>anything else out there--and still be valid and important research.
You claimed to have "solved" the factoring problem. Now you
claim your research is in its infancy. Of course above you also stated
your theory may be wrong.
>
>But most of you are losers who are here because you have nowhere else
>to go.
>
>While I have nowhere else to go, many of you will criticize.
If you don't make wild claims and get defensive a lot fewer people
would criticize and you might get some respect.
>
>I do talk out what I'm thinking about research wise at
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sufactor/
>
>as I work to get a handle on both the theory and the implementation, in
>a world of lies, where supposedly math can be of interest for its own
>sake, but we all know that the only time anyone is going to really pay
>attention is when this research breaks something.
>
>It's a world built on destruction. And until my research can destroy
>something, you people will sit back, and ignore me, or call me names.
>
>Well, the theory says that surrogate factoring will break certain
>beliefs about factoring, and in doing so, change the world.
No where have you offered a mathematical proof that surrogate
factoring has interesting properties. Similar methods are used in
elliptic curve factoring methods. n+1/n-1 factoring methods also
used such methods. Your idea isn't really new.
>
>Your criticisms are just more evidence to me of how necessary change
>is.
>
>
>James Harris
Some of the criticism is unjustified. Some people have claimed that
because your method won't factor properly 100% of the time it
isn't useful. This isn't really true. If it was fast and worked 50%
of the time on large numbers it would be interesting. As it currently
stands your method isn't fast and you haven't proved it works 50%
of the time on even moderate sized numbers (say 256 bits).
Leslie 'Mack' McBride
remove text between _ marks to respond via e-mail
- Next message: Larry Hammick: "PGP signature format"
- Previous message: David Kastrup: "Re: Theory versus implemention, I'm puzzled"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Next in thread: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Reply: ošin: "Re: Surrogate factoring, mysteries"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
