Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?
From: David Eather (eather_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 04/21/05
 Next message: JeanLuc Cooke: "Re: md5 checksum"
 Previous message: mm_at_nospam.net: "Re: Primes algorithm"
 In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?"
 Next in thread: Volker Hetzer: "Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?"
 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 22:30:57 +1000
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Proginoskes wrote:
>> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>>> Proginoskes wrote:
>>>> jst...@msn.com wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> The SFT as a theorem is unique in terms of that
>>>>> approach to the factoring problem, showing that
>>>>> you can use rationals.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've stepped outside of the box.
>>>>
>>>> And off the cliff.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More social crap, which I've seen his highly
>>> effective in convincing people of things that are
>>> not true.
>>
>> You use it on me, so I use it on you.
>>
>>>> You don't believe in moderation, do you? It always
>>>> has to be one extreme or another.
>>>>
>>>>> Now, let's consider your claim as the SFT maps
>>>>> factors, and if it is not practical, then it maps
>>>>> factors in a biased way.
>>>>>
>>>>> But assume then that there is another theorem
>>>>> that does not.
>>>>
>>>> Find it. And show that there IS a way to get
>>>> NONTRIVIAL factors. Then
>>>> people will listen to you for once.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The SFT maps hyperbolas to each other.
>>
>> Duh.
>>
>>> Now if you graph a hyperbola, it turns out that what
>>> can be considered trivial and nontrivial factors
>>> occur with rational solutions equally.
>>>
>>> There is no preference shown, and why should there be?
>>>
>>> This issue of triviality is a human issue driven by
>>> economic and social issues.
>>
>> Mathematics DOES care about "preferences".
>>
>> For instance, when is the remainder of (n1)! when divided by n equal
>> to n1?
>>
>> (Answer below.*)
>>
>>> The mathematics has no reason and no capacity to hide nontrivial
>>> factors so that RSA can be secure.
>>
>> Once again you've got it backwards. RSA is only used BECAUSE
>> factoring is difficult. They didn't pick a scheme and then put out a
>> bunch of propaganda that factoring is actually difficult.
>>
>> And once again, you're just talking. If factoring was easy, and SF
>> could be used to factor, ANYONE can factor the RSA numbers, break
>> into accounts, etc.
>>
>> Do you really think that there's a worldwide conspiracy covering up
>> all of these breakins? No. But if factoring is easy, you'd have to
>> accept the conspiracy, because there's no news about it.
>>
>>  Christopher Heckman
>>
>
> The SFT points you in the right direction, but you still might have to
> work things out to make it practical.
>
> 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.
>
> In reply I get people telling me to factor an RSA number.
BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
Hash: SHA1
An RSA number???  *YOU CAN'T SHOW YOUR WORKING STEPS TO FACTOR 15!!!*
You're an ignoramus, surrounded by a delusion, wrap in an abusive
personality.
If you won't stop posting please at least start your threads with JSH so we
can plonk them
BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQmec9ZS9Fk5okqe7EQIw7gCePe9G3xMs56r5QV2qeWDz8WQuW1gAn3Va
ZrYU1TiCGMJUPl7RuQ14at+e
=wnEE
END PGP SIGNATURE
>
> That isn't a rational response.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Instead, posters make a lot of replies, often derisive, where they
> make their own claims, often false ones, like usually just claiming
> to have refuted my claims, often without really referring back to
> what I actually say.
>
> Then it's a degenerate conversationnot really a conversationbut
> people talking at the subject.
>
> That strategy works with "pure math" as I learned as I watched my
> research on nonpolynomial factorization get trashed and watched as
> the lies flew about my prime counting function, 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The world needs to deal with the math before it's forced upon it.
>
> 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.
>
>
> James Harris
 Next message: JeanLuc Cooke: "Re: md5 checksum"
 Previous message: mm_at_nospam.net: "Re: Primes algorithm"
 In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?"
 Next in thread: Volker Hetzer: "Re: JSH: Surrogate Factoring Fails Completely, What Next?"
 Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
