# Re: Factoring large composite numbers

*From*: Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: 1 Apr 2006 05:46:19 GMT

contini@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Unruh wrote:

b) Your observation forms the basis of the method of a poster here called Stevens who

keeps posting that he has solved the factoring problem. So far he has not

managed to factor any large numbers, despite claiming to have

revolutionised the subject.

Ie, the observation is a very old one. Unfortunately noone has managed to

find a way to use it to make factoring any easier. ( Well, if you happen to

choose your number so that it is one less than some square, then of course

this method says it is very weak.)

To the original poster: please ignore the these comments.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just because one mad

person has tried to use the method in an insane way should not

discredit all of

the real researchers who have used the method in clever ways. In other

words,

Unruh's assessment is misleading.

Which part is misleading? Has someone found a way to use it to make

factoring any easier? Who?

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Factoring large composite numbers***From:*Phil Carmody

**References**:**Re: Factoring large composite numbers***From:*contini

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Factoring large composite numbers** - Next by Date:
**Re: Factoring large composite numbers** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Factoring large composite numbers** - Next by thread:
**Re: Factoring large composite numbers** - Index(es):