Re: Surrogate Factoring Theorem

• Previous message: Juuso Hukkanen: "Re: Topicality: James Harris and surrogate factoring (vote)"
• In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate Factoring Theorem"
• Next in thread: Bruce Stephens: "Re: Surrogate Factoring Theorem"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:54:24 -0400

[JSH]
> ...
> Look *carefully* at your own example and notice that you talk about
> factoring a single number, while I'm connecting the factorizations of
> two numbers.

Both are obvious, but I fail to see any relevance. You haven't made your
case:

    You don't need to make a case that non-trivial factorizations are
    given for some choice(s) of a, because that's trivially so. The
    real challenge still stands untouched: showing that non-trivial
    factorizations are non-trivially *likely* to be gotten. Spouting
    platitudes like "the math already knows" is a dodge, wishing the
    difficulties away by refusing to face them.

You're still wishing them away here.

> You put up a single number to factor, when the theorem connects the
> factors of two numbers.

What of it? What specifically about that makes it more likely that a
non-trivial factor will be found for the _target_ number than is picking a
"rational factor" of the target number at random directly?

> You have a *social* need, which I've seen before in Usenet posters,
> where you just disagree.

Say something that makes sense to me, and I'll agree instead. That's
happened in the past, you know, and neither of us have enjoyed a personality
transplant since then. When you appear to be writing nonsense, I'm not
going to pretend I agree -- and that hasn't changed either.

> What you say doesn't apply to what's being discussed, but the social
> crowd on Usenet will often just claim it does, which is a strategy that
> works with "pure math".

Specify an algorithm and I'll test it. The last time I tried to make sense
of your latest "theorem", the exposition was peppered with algebraic errors,
and I'm not wasting more time trying to guess what you meant. I reverted to
a much simpler theorem because it seemed to me to get at the essence of your
claims without pages of flawed algebraic convolutions getting in the way.
It's certainly possible that I dropped something important along the way,
but it's your responsibility to state things coherently & correctly to begin
with. Blaming others for the consequences of your mistakes is typical but
not truly helpful.

...

> Math society lies where it can get away with it, and now, at least for
> a while, it's lying where it can't--with factoring.

Let's get this straight. Your surrogate factoring theorem is a "dramatic
result", but you can't actually use it to factor integers, nor can you prove
that it's *likely* to find non-trivial factors. You can't quantify it at
all except to claim "50%" (which is wrong: don't pin your hopes on a
miracle there, cuz it ain't gonna happen). More, it's not your job to make
it work, because you're "the theory guy" -- although working out theoretical
aspects like O() behavior and probabilities aren't your jobs either. Even
though it's not your job, you could program it yourself, but you won't,
because out of altruistic concern for humanity you don't want to risk
collapsing the world's economy by actually factoring a large integer. Even
so, posters who argue that it appears it will work no better than picking
gcd candidates at random are _lying_. It doesn't matter that the last 10
algorithms you specified demonstrably performed no better than picking gcd
candidates at random, all the while you were making even more grandiose
claims about some of them -- and it doesn't matter that the latest "theory"
appears to be more of the same. The last 10 also "connect[ed] the factors
of two numbers", so there's nothing essentially new in that alone. I in
particular am not only lying, I'm an emissary of Satan, am insane, and have
no soul ("People like him [Peters] made bad choices and are now locked in
their own version of Hell ... their sanity is forfeit, and with it their
souls.").

Is that about right? If so, you've clearly seen through my elaborate web of
stupid excuses, evasions, and ad hominem distractions -- but I have to
protest it's damn presumptuous of you to assume I'm male <wink>.

• Previous message: Juuso Hukkanen: "Re: Topicality: James Harris and surrogate factoring (vote)"
• In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate Factoring Theorem"
• Next in thread: Bruce Stephens: "Re: Surrogate Factoring Theorem"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]