Re: Surrogate factoring and the k/T ratio
- From: jstevh@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 2 Mar 2007 14:20:40 -0800
On Mar 2, 2:10 pm, Volker Hetzer <firstname.lastn...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
jst...@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:> On Mar 1, 2:02 pm, s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
James Harris wrote:
I really do not know why some of you lie about mathematics, but I noteNo, actually it is harder to lie about mathematics than other areas
for those who don't understand, it is EASIER to lie about mathematics
than other areas as it is so hard for others to check!!!
since mathematicians give proofs of their theorems that can be checked
by anyone who has gone to the trouble of learning the relevant
mathematics. Compare that to, say, physics, where one can claim to
So? Yes, you can check, but when you say a mathematician is wrong,
and he says he's not, what then?
You both try it out (the claim here is speed, isn't it?) and make sure
that you use the same algorithms and parameters.
Then two things can happen:
1) You stop responding, thereby conceding the point.
2) You concede the point and give an excuse (not final, trivial error, "just
an idea" etc.)
Then everyone but you agree that you are wrong and you start a new thread.
Sometimes you make a modification to your idea and the cycle repeats.
Does that answer your question?
Oh, changing the subject to me. Well, what if I prove things, over
and over again, only to have posters come back and just lie about the
It's how the math community works.
Like with surrogate factoring, if you knew that for a given k,
factoring 2k^2 - T would factor your target composite T, guaranteed,
what is the probability of factoring T?
Well, you nincompoops focus on all the combinations of the factors of
2k^2 - T to try and claim that it'd be tiny, when that looks like
Practically, if someone were attacking, say, an RSA number, they would
not care so much about looping threw a tremendous number of
combinations if they knew that they'd get the number cracked with one
of them, now would they?
To me that is common sense, but to Usenet posters, it has to be
explained in detail.
Now either your mathematical community is remarkably stupid, or you're
very brilliant about misrepresenting the truth.
And testing is just a validation of the mathematical proof around
surrogate factoring anyway.
You people either stupidly avoid the proofs around surrogate
factoring, or you brilliant avoid proof that you are lying about it.
So why lie here?
The recent gyrations of the stock market--a useful coincidence--are a
lot about what people BELIEVE to be true, so if mathematicians can lie
about a new way to factor that actually works, they can turn
perception into reality for many people.
People who trust them will avoid what works!!!
People can be convinced to not use a factoring method that might be
practical, just because they trust that mathematicians aren't lying to
them about it, when they don't understand that the field is COMPLETELY
Mathematicians lie all the time. It's rare when they don't lie, not
when they do.
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: Good news!
- Next by Date: Proper evaluation of surrogate factoring
- Previous by thread: Re: Surrogate factoring and the k/T ratio
- Next by thread: Re: Surrogate factoring and the k/T ratio