Re: Surrogate factoring and the k/T ratio

jstevh@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
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 note
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!!!
No, actually it is harder to lie about mathematics than other areas
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.
So you don't see yourself as a mathematician?

Well, what if I prove things, over
and over again, only to have posters come back and just lie about the
details?
As others have repeatedly pointed out, we acknowledge that you
can factor numbers. However, what you've failed to show, much less prove,
is that you can factor numbers at a speed that justifies the
"solves the factoring problem" tag.
Evidence in that regard would be the factoring of a large number.
A "proof" would be a thorough analysis, taking into account program
structures and so on. You still owe both.


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?
It simply depends on the time involved. That's what "solving the factoring
problem" means.

And testing is just a validation of the mathematical proof around
surrogate factoring anyway.
Yes, something you've avoided until now.


You people either stupidly avoid the proofs around surrogate
factoring, or you brilliant avoid proof that you are lying about it.
"We" simply think there is an easier way of checking that you can
factor large numbers. Rather than debugging your "proofs" while being
insulted all the way through, "we" simply watch out for you claiming
one of the rsa prizes and view everything else as part of the daily
entertainment value of sci.crypt.


People can be convinced to not use a factoring method that might be
practical,
Emphasis on the word "might". So how do you intend to move from
"might" to "is"?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
.

Relevant Pages

  • JSH: Of course theyre lying
    ... The reason for me picking the factoring problem is that the lies ... ALL of the other posters have come in line with his original claims. ... However, I know they will simply turn to some new lie, so I pause to ... Your group claims to care about mathematics, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH Of course theyre lying
    ... The reason for me picking the factoring problem is that the lies ... However, They know I will simply turn to some new lie, so they pause to ... My group claims to care about mathematics, ... I hate mathematics, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: JSH: Of course theyre lying
    ... The reason for me picking the factoring problem is that the lies ... However, I know they will simply turn to some new lie, so I pause to ... Your group claims to care about mathematics, ... You hate mathematics, ...
    (sci.math)
  • 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)
  • Re: JSH: Newsgroups mistakes, updated explanation and proof
    ... I make lots of mistakes in my search for truth and quite ... maybe you could just forget about mathematics altogether and try to ... they lie, and lie, and lie then I say we have a serious problem ... And I cheer my ability to not only fail in trying, ...
    (sci.math)