Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof
jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: My brainstorming and crank label"
- Previous message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Public versus private space, Usenet topic"
- In reply to: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Next in thread: ođin: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: ođin: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 13 Feb 2005 12:34:38 -0800
Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > You made the claim that finding A is an issue, and I showed that it
is
> > not.
>
> No you didn't. I'm still waiting for a formal algorithm and/or a
worked
> example. Preferably both.
>
> > Actually, you find Ax and Az--integers--as can easily be seen from
the
> > square roots to be defined by the factorizations of Tj^2 and TM^2.
> >
> > I was answering your objection.
> >
> >>
> >> You should be able to, as it's so painfully obvious.
> >>
> >> Décio
> >
> > I just worked this out today, when it should have occurred to me
before
> > to just multiply both sides by A, but well, it didn't.
> >
> >>From the theory to an implementation that can handle really big
numbers
> > is, however, not trivial.
>
> No it's not, at least according to you. The only step of your method
that
> you've admitted to being difficult is finding the factorization of M
+ j
> and M - j. I provided an efficient algorithm to find that, and I went
> further, I gave an actual value of j that works for RSA-2048. If the
> remaining steps are trivial, why haven't you found the factorization
of
> RSA-2048 yet?
>
> Again, I'll go out of my way to try to help you. I'm somewhat
acquaintanced
> with number theoretical software, in which one could easily program a
> solution to the remaining steps of your method. If finding Ax and Az
is so
> painfully obvious, then you'll have no problem with stating it as a
formal
> algorithm. In exchange for that, I'll readily give you an efficient
> implementation which can handle `really big numbers.' Failure to
provide me
> with a formal algorithm will be interpreted as an admission that
finding
> the missing parameters is difficult (and rightly so.)
>
> Décio
Ok. An algorithm is easy.
Given an odd natural number M to be factored.
Select j. Simplest is to let j = floor(M/2).
If j is even, add 1.
Calculate T.
T = M^2 - j^2.
Factor T, and j.
Iterate through integer f_1 and f_2 such that f_1 f_2 = Tj^2.
For each f_1 and f_2 calculate Ax using
Ax = (f_1 - f_2) + 2j^2
and
Ax = (f_2 - f_1) + 2j^2
to handle plus or minus, and take the gcd of Ax with M.
The gcd of Ax with M will be a single prime factor of M, for at least
one set of f_1 and f_2.
James Harris
- Next message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: My brainstorming and crank label"
- Previous message: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Public versus private space, Usenet topic"
- In reply to: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Next in thread: ođin: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: ođin: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: I was right, surrogate factoring proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|