Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring
From: Matt Gutting (tchrmatt_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: rpl: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- In reply to: Matt Gutting: "Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:56:21 -0500
Matt Gutting wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
>> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an even easier test of surrogate factoring: I gave you a list
>>> of fifty 20-digit composite numbers a couple weeks ago and you
>>
>>
>> haven't
>>
>>> factored a single one. I think I know what test score to assign,
>>> based on that result.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's not a fair test. I'll explain why, again, and I'll also
>> explain again, what the test is, and why my test is an easy one.
>>
> [snip]
>
>> If it's not random, then some way exists to figure out how to get all
>> the integer Az's without knowing M.
>>
>> Those are the two possibilities.
>>
>
> That's true, James. And if you look and listen, I believe you'll find that
> everyone here agrees that the second possibility is the case.
>
>> Now posters working hard to discount this research--apparently deciding
>> that it's Harris mathematics or JSH algebra--are avoiding the actual
>> issue from what I've seen in looking at posts in this thread.
>>
>> The reason is simple, the mathematics doesn't work for them either way,
>> if their intent is to discount it.
>>
>> That's what happens with major math results, human beings working hard
>> to dismiss them have to ignore facts.
>>
>> Now my test is simple: calculate Ax, by taking an M with known factors,
>> and *look* at the prime factors of the denominator of Ax, and you will
>> find that they are the same prime factors as T has.
>>
>> That proves that there are rules governing the value of the rationals
>> Ax's that results from the integer Az's.
>>
>> And then, algorithms *can* be developed.
>>
>> Now, if mathematicians were what they claimed then it wouldn't be
>> required that I actually produce a working program that can factor RSA
>> numbers, as that's an unreasonable request. It's an unresaonable
>> request as if I were at that point I wouldn't need to convince anyone,
>> as I could just demonstrate.
>>
>> Worse, my ability or lack of ability to write such a program does not
>> disprove the mathematics!
>>
>> And in this case that means someone else might, or may already have.
>>
>> But mathematicians are NOT what they claim, and in this case they are
>> setting other people up to be responsible for their failures, if things
>> go badly.
>>
>> Now I'll work at building that program to factor an RSA number, but
>> while time passes, it's you who may suffer the consequences, in a world
>> where hackers may now have the upper hand.
>
>
> Heck, James, *I* can write a program to factor an RSA number. How about
> this?
>
> int M;
> M = //insert the RSA number here
> for (int i=2; i<=sqrt(M);i++) {
> if (M % i = 0) {
> cout << i << " is a factor of " << M;
> }
> }
>
> This will produce *every* factor of M less than sqrt(M) (and the only
> reason
> it doesn't stop after just one factor is because I don't know enough C++).
>
> Of course, it will take quite a while. This is precisely what others
> have been
> saying: not that your math can't produce a workable algorithm, but that
> it's
> (at the very best) no more efficient than the least efficient algorithms
> currently existing. I think it's great that you've (apparently) arrived at
> a new algorithm, but it's not important if it's not an improvement over
> what's already available.
>
> Matt
>
> (excess newsgroup stripped)
Oops, sorry. Apparently some have been saying that your math can't (always)
produce a workable algorithm. And you know what? After looking at some
of their examples, I have to agree with them.
Matt
- Next message: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring"
- Previous message: rpl: "Re: Thou shalt have no other gods before the ANSI C standard"
- In reply to: Matt Gutting: "Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho: "Re: Easy test of surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
