Re: SF: Infinity proof
From: ošin (ošin_at_ragnarok.com)
Date: 04/18/05
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Talking Rationally About Surrogate Factoring"
- Previous message: Matt Mahoney: "Re: md5 checksum"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Infinity proof"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Infinity proof"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Infinity proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:32:00 -0700
The mathematics, however, doesn't indicate a preference for what we can
call trivial factors over what can be called non-trivial factors, as
I've explained, so given your human choices, it's as likely to give you
non-trivial factors as trivial ones.
The SFT does that? OK then how would it work out if you just guessed at
factors to start with, without SFT? I can just as easily cast your point of
view without SFT as follows: Randomly choosing x/y values doesn't indicate a
preference for what we can call trivial factors over what can be called
non-trivial factors, as you've explained, so given your human choices, it's
as likely to give you non-trivial factors as trivial ones.
So throw SFT on the JSH idea scrap heap, and just guess. So how is your idea
better than random guessing?
- Next message: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Talking Rationally About Surrogate Factoring"
- Previous message: Matt Mahoney: "Re: md5 checksum"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Infinity proof"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Infinity proof"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: SF: Infinity proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]