Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Feb 2008 10:28:52 -0800
Ertugrul Söylemez <es@xxxxxxxx> writes:
That's what I was saying. We know that factorization can be done in
polynomial time. We just don't have the computer to do it.
Factorization can also be done in constant time, by that criterion.
With the difference that we don't know a realistic algorithm, and that
there isn't any evidence that it _may_ be possible.
Ok, if you replace "can be done" with "might be doable" then your
second sentence quoted is correct.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- Re: triple algorithms
- References:
- triple algorithms
- From: Antony Clements
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Simon Johnson
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Simon Johnson
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Guy Macon
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: triple algorithms
- From: Ertugrul Söylemez
- triple algorithms
- Prev by Date: Re: Someone said 256 bits is not enough
- Next by Date: Salting with hash data
- Previous by thread: Re: triple algorithms
- Next by thread: Re: triple algorithms
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|