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

From: Proginoskes (proginoskes_at_email.msn.com)
Date: 04/21/05 

Date: 20 Apr 2005 17:21:50 -0700

jst...@msn.com wrote:
> [...]
> The SFT points you in the right direction, but you
> still might have to work things out to make it
> practical.

You can say the same thing about basic arithmetic. How much more
powerful is the SF Theorem than basic arithmetic? Not at all.

> My analogy is to the atomic bomb.
>
> There was the theory that indicated it was possible,
> but a research effort was still needed to build a
> working atom bomb.

Yes, and the research built that bomb. Your "research" has yet to
produce any results, like factoring an integer.

> In reply I get people telling me to factor an RSA number.
>
> That isn't a rational response.

Yes, it is. If you claim to have an algorithm to factor integers, you
need to show that it does. If I claim I can read your Social Security
Number from across the country using telepathy, you would want a
demonstration. Or maybe you believe that I can do it already?

That fact that you don't consider it a rational response means that you
are not thinking in terms of mathematics or computer science. It
suggests that you don't actually have anything and don't want to admit
it.

> A rational response might be asking me why I'm so
> certain the theory is important, and exactly why
> do I think it could lead to practical factoring.

Okay: Why are you so certain the theory is important, and exactly why
do you think it could lead to practical factoring?

Now I'll see if I get a rational response from you.

People have asked this, though. You haven't been able to give an answer
that stands up to any scrutiny, though. You still haven't answered the
claim that the SF Theorem will ALWAYS give a trivial factorization of
M. You blur the issue by talking about hyperbolas.

You haven't even "cheated"; i.e., chosen a value of M, like 103 * 131,
then figured out a rational factor f_1 of T j^2 which makes b_2 = 103,
and then published the results.

You can't even fudge the data here to justify any interest in SF.

Instead, you've attacked people with non sequitor posts. Your actions
say much more than a direct question does.

If there was any solid evidence that SF works, you should have posted
it by now. Otherwise, you're not doing any real research.

> That would put me in the position of laying out details
> about my assertions and having to prove them, and then
> they could each be critiqued, and shown to be correct or
> faulty.

Again, this has been done. But when people have pointed out mistakes in
your analysis, you've attacked them, using The Hammer, threatening to
turn their names over to the CIA and FBI, etc.

Your responses have shown you can't deal with critique of your research
with any degree of sanity or common sense. (Remember when you said you
"knew more about set theory and Cantor" than I did, then showed you
didn't know how to use the terminology later on in the same post?)

I gave you an example of a probability distribution of the integers
which made the probability of choosing an even integer equal to 1/3.
This shows that if you have two sets which are countably infinite, they
are not always equally likely to happen. Yet you continue with your
posts about the "50% success rate" of SF. This makes me wonder if you
bother checking out the mathematics in the posts which you respond to.

(BTW, there IS a mistake (a gap) in Nora Baron's proof that the SF
Theorem will always give you a trivial factor of M. But you need to
find it before you can claim it's there. Did you even bother reading
the post in question?)

> Instead, posters make a lot of replies, often derisive,

That seems to be the only way you can communicate, when you're
challenged.

> where they make their own claims,

Most of the time, "they" make claims which are actually true. You just
haven't bothered to go through them in enough detail to see they are.

> often false ones,

Some do slip through, and are corrected by other posters.

> like usually just claiming to have refuted my claims,
> often without really referring back to what I actually
> say.

You say that the SF Theorem is true. The theorem is all they NEED to
refer to.

> Then it's a degenerate conversation--not really a
> conversation--but people talking at the subject.

The phrase you're looking for here is "one-sided", which is actually
more like a monologue. They're explaining that something in wrong in
your analysis, and then they go on to explain exactly what it is and
whether it can be fixed. Or they would, if you'd bother going through
it.

> That strategy works with "pure math" as I learned as I
> watched my research on non-polynomial factorization get
> trashed

A paper got published which had a mistake in it, so it was withdrawn.
That mistake was explained by several people, and you refused to listen
to what they had to say, instead siccing The Hammer on them.

> and watched as the lies flew about my prime counting
> function,

What "lie"? That it has already been discovered?

I keep referring to a certain paper. I would bet real money you haven't
read it yet. If your prime counting function really is different, then
you should be able to explain how it's different. It should give you
pleasure to do so.

The fact that you haven't done this suggests that there really is no
difference, and you don't want to admit it. Because this is one of your
Three Results, and two isn't as good as three.

> and it didn't matter what I could actually prove
> to people who had social positions and the will to
> post and post and post and just lie continually
> about even basic mathematics.

Once again, if the truth is really on your side, you should be able to
provide evidence. If SF works 50% of the time, then necessarily is one
rational number f_1 which makes b_2 a non-trivial rational factor.
There have to be a lot of them. All you have to do is to find one. All
you have to do is add the equation b_2 = 103, M = 103 * 131, and solve
these equations for j, f_1, and k_1 so that j is an integer, and f_1
and k_1 are rational numbers.

This can be done with P&P (pencil and paper). The equations aren't
difficult to solve, as you know.

The big mystery is: Why HAVEN'T you done this? If you're a true
researcher, a true mathematician, you would go off and solve this small
problem, which I've told you exactly how to do. Then when you give j,
f_1, and k_1 to Usenet, they HAVE to accept the fact that SF works at
least partially.

And society doesn't have to collapse. It's not like you're factoring an
RSA number.

If the truth is really on your side, it will only take this much work
to show it.

> Here, it's about time. Given time I fear that more
> evidence than you would ever want will crop up that
> someone did the math, broke the factoring problem,
> and then went on to exploit that solution.
>
> And, quite a few people who would like to crack the
> factoring problem, wouldn't give a damn about the RSA
> prizes, as they'd have either the potential to make
> much more money illicitly, or they'd be, well, people
> who have other aims in mind.

Is there any actual evidence of this? No. So it hasn't happened.

Will any evidence turn up? You've been talking about SF for a while, so
if someone were to find a Key that would make it work, it would be done
by now.

That's because it's easier to accept the hypothesis that factoring
really is hard than the hypothesis that it's easy, NSA has been BSing
the rest of the world, that someone has found out that factoring is
really easy, they've broken all kinds of security, AND that the media
has been supressing this information.

It's called Occam's Razor. The more believable hypothesis the the one
requiring fewer assumptions.

> The world needs to deal with the math before it's
> forced upon it.

If SF could possibly lead to "bad guys" developing it and using it to
break encryption, then it is your duty, as someone with a head start,
to warn the NSA about this threat, so they can be warned in time. Then
another hard problem can be chosen to form the basis of cryptography,
and we'll all be safe from terrorists using SF.

This means it is your obligation to fine-tune the SF Theorem so that
you can tell when you get non-trivial factors (since such a thing is
theoretically possible), and to create an algorithm which you can
demonstrate to the NSA.

You cannot save the world by being complacant. There is too much
information out there already. If you do not fully develop the threory,
someone else will and then will control the world. Your unwillingness
to obtain results will be what dooms the world.

It will rest upon your shoulders, James.

> I say yesterday would have been good, but since I'm still having to
> talk this out on Usenet, today would be a good start.

Why are you talking? Actions speak louder than words!

     --- Christopher Heckman

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?
    ... RSA is only used BECAUSE ... > propaganda that factoring is actually difficult. ... A rational response might be asking me why I'm so certain the theory is ... That strategy works with "pure math" as I learned as I watched my ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Solving k^m = q mod N
    ... Given a quartic residue q mod N, to be solved one can find k, where ... sum is coprime to N. ... factoring. ... us" to find evidence for you. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... >> your proliferation of redundant threads that you don't pay attention ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... But are you implying that if Rick were the inventor, ... > the factoring problem as there was every reason to believe that I would ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Proof factoring solution is closed form
    ... >> your proliferation of redundant threads that you don't pay attention ... Remember I'm the inventor of surrogate factoring. ... But are you implying that if Rick were the inventor, ... > the factoring problem as there was every reason to believe that I would ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Mystery increases
    ... solution to the factoring problem. ...  Any solution to the factoring problem has ... The mathematics shows that you can factor a composite D, ... The proof shows that one of the combinations of factors of D-1 must ...
    (sci.math)