Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?

From: Rick Decker (rdecker_at_hamilton.edu)
Date: 04/20/05 

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:27:18 -0400

jstevh@msn.com wrote:

> Lits O'Hate wrote:
>
>>Now that the most recent mutation of surrogate "factoring" has been
>>soundly refuted, what will James Harris do next?
>>
>
>
> The SFT can't be refuted. It's a theorem.

I agree; the result seems to be correct.
>
> Now can it be proven to not possibly lead to anything practical?
>
At this date, there's evidence to support the assertion that
as far as producing useful factors, the techinques in the
theorem are no better than picking possible factors at random.

> Well, if so, it'd be pure math, then, now wouldn't it.
>
Yes, but for the fact that it's a long-winded way of establishing
a triviality.

Regards,

Rick

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SF: Some basic facts
    ... > First off, I have the surrogate factoring theorem, also known as the ... > SFT, which is a theorem. ... I have the James Harris is a Crank theorem, also known as the JHiaC, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: SF: National security
    ... >> will be sitting in front of some people asking you some very hard ... > James Harris ... >You are a loony. ... ,while SFT is not verified to work cut sci.crypt from replies. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: A theorem cant be wrong
    ... > So the surrogate factoring theorem (SFT) cannot be wrong. ... > I like pushing away from the factoring problem to focus on the SFT ... there is the perfection of a ... > James Harris ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?
    ... Lits O'Hate wrote: ... what will James Harris do next? ... The SFT can't be refuted. ... Well, if so, it'd be pure math, then, now wouldn't it. ...
    (sci.crypt)