Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art

From: KeithK (me_at_nomail.com)
Date: 02/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:45:54 -0700

<jstevh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1109113960.330457.235750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I am quite willing to admit being disappointed with surrogate
> factoring in many ways, as I haven't been able to close the
> space--meaning, perfectly factor *every* number I try with a single
> j--and that's just, well, it's disheartening.
>
> At the start I had high hopes, and a lot of certainty, but now I'm
> really just looking for answers and quite willing to accept if the
> method cannot be made practical.
>
> There are many reasons for that, not the least being that over time,
> whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my
> mark, without even considering my other research, which will though,
> come in afterwards anyway.
>
> That's because it is, as I said, a new factoring method at a level not
> seen in centuries, as if this Usenet poster replied correctly that
> Fermat discovered congruence of squares, then a discovery of a
> factoring method at this level has not been made in centuries.

I haven't seen James respond to the following, which I quote from 'flip' Feb
18 RE: in the thread Factoring, sf,and reasonable requests. But note James'
sudden interest in complex numbers in this thread.

 <quote>
"These equations were previously published in the 1930's by Ivan Melch, in a
German book titled "Functions Theory" by Fischkopf Press. Melch has them as
only a side note on page 137 as part of his derivation of the famous
Gebratener Speck theory. Melch uses Z, a complex quantity instead of the
oversimplified real number A. The equations were also shown to be irrelevant
for either surrogate factoring, or random number generation.

Claims by "James Harris" that he "invented them" are unfounded.
Unfortunately, he made several mistakes as he copied the equations out of
the book, such as overlooking the complex to real number, which further
makes them useless."
 <unquote>

KeithK
>
> I would greatly welcome anyone willing to challenge that remark, with
> some other factoring method.
>
> Hey, if I'm wrong--correct me.
>
> With that said, I'm looking over the full theory, as I've worked more
> on the surrogate factoring paper still at my Yahoo! Group which has
> been closed to the public, and it's telling me that I've covered a LOT
> of ground.
>
> I'm thinking now that the final solution may be complex numbers.
>
> That's because A is not given in any of the methods used, as Ax, and Az
> are what are used, so A might be complex, with x, y and z complex,
> while Ax and Az are rationals, which opens up more combinations, which
> I'd previously ignored, focusing on only rationals.
>
> It's a fascinating twist--to me as others might disagree--but it's a
> theoretical path at this point not tested out.
>
> So what is the state of the art in surrogate factoring?
>
> I'm not sure. I know what I have and my programs actually factor a
> very high percentage of the time, while I'm looking for 100%, so I'm
> disappointed.
>
> It's harder to interpret posts from others, while I know that more
> people than you may realize are working on the problem, and giving the
> high rate of factorization I get--still disappointing to me as it's not
> 100%--I consider it possible that much of the research is now happening
> behind closed doors.
>
> So, yes, most of you are now basically out, as I've closed doors, and
> others are apparently now working in secret, and that's understandable.
>
> With that said, while I have the new paper, which can still leak out as
> there are other members in my Yahoo! Group, I have put up the
> algorithms I'm testing, so what the hell?
>
> Do you need the theory, when you have the algorithms?
>
> I'm hoping some of you do. I'm looking for theoretical types who are
> interested in looking over the paper to see if there are holes as I'm
> still desperately looking for a reason why, since I think I've covered
> all the bases.
>
> I need to know where the hole is.
>
> Interested parties can email me, and I can just send them the paper, or
> they can ask to join the group.
>
> The nice thing about the group is, no Usenet posters posting just to
> distract, make fun, or dodge the issue.
>
> It's a closed environment, mostly quiet, where you can be objective,
> without worrying about your comments being made public, as I can't make
> the group public again if I tried, and I will not bring information out
> of the group about postings, while if anyone in it does, without
> permission, they'll get quickly TOSSED.
>
>
> James Harris
>

Relevant Pages

  • Reality check, surrogate factoring
    ... Surrogate factoring is meant to beat the tactic of picking two hard ... and it will be really big for a big target. ... of the time for rationals x's. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Reality check, surrogate factoring
    ... Surrogate factoring is meant to beat the tactic of picking two hard ... and it will be really big for a big target. ... of the time for rationals x's. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... > whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... > factoring method at this level has not been made in centuries. ... > behind closed doors. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Surrogate factoring, periodic behavior
    ... That is the primary decision relation that determines if a surrogate ... Remember the surrogate factorization involves factoring a target ... as human curiosity is such a wonderful thing. ... You are the cruel jocks picking on the kid you call nothing. ...
    (sci.math)
  • SF: Complex solutions, current state of the art
    ... I am quite willing to admit being disappointed with surrogate ... whether you realize it or not, surrogate factoring means I've made my ... That's because it is, as I said, a new factoring method at a level not ... high rate of factorization I get--still disappointing to me as it's not ...
    (sci.math)