# Re: JSH: My view on factoring problem situation

*From*: JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:53:31 -0800 (PST)

On Nov 4, 11:12 pm, gordonb.ni...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

You've blown your credibility. If you claim that 2+2=4, no first-grade

math student who recognizes you will believe it, even if you say

you have a proof.

We'll see.

Have you admitted yet that "the factoring problem" includes as an

important element the issue of speed of factoring? If not, well,

I always have.

Then how come none of your proofs mention the speed of the algorithm?

That's a fair question: surrogate factoring factors one number by

factoring another, so its "speed" is dependent both on the ability to

factor the surrogate as well as the efficacy of doing that

factorization.

So it does not analyze well with Big O notation.

trial division has been around for a long, long time, much longer

than you have been alive. If you're not going to factor large

numbers, how do you intend to prove that it's fast? "It's freaking

algebra" doesn't cut it. Inverting a trillion x trillion matrix

There is no generally accepted method for solving quadratic residues

modulo N.

I've provided such a method: a world's first.

It just so happens that such a thing also solves the factoring

problem.

You haven't proved that it works faster than trial division. For

that matter, you haven't proved that it always works, either. I

think you did prove that *if* it works, it provides a correct answer,

not necessarily faster than trial division. That alone is not much

of an accomplishment.

So it's a two-fer.

Not without the missing pieces.

The method connects two factorizations so that factoring one is

connected with factoring the other.

It also proves that EVERY integer factorization is connected to an

infinity of other factorizations--surrogate factorizations.

<deleted>

It is the method for finding quadratic residues modulo N.

And it has been around for around a year now, as I'm sort of

celebrating a belated birthday for the discovery.

Now you can say I don't have credibility but I figure if it works

SOMEONE in the world is probably using it now.

And may have been using it for months.

So what? I don't buy your doomsday theories that cracking RSA will

cause a world panic. There are lots easier ways of stealing credit

card numbers than cracking SSL used in e-commerce stores.

Unless people like you have watched exploits and rationalized them

away, deciding that they were "human error".

There are plenty of exploits that don't require cracking SSL, such

as dumpster diving, finding a plaintext file on the server containing

large amounts of credit card info, hacking or social-engineering

the administrator's password, bribing an employee, use of card-number

generators, stealing old backup tapes, etc. These get maybe hundreds

of thousands of cards at a time. These have been going on long

before you came up with your method. (The Egghead breach was at

least 10 years ago, wasn't it?)

Even if you can trivially break SSL, you have to be in a position

where you can tap the traffic to the e-commerce web site (such as

working at their ISP), and that's not very easy, especially if you

are in a different country. And you only get one card at a time

if you break an SSL connection to an ordinary user buying something,

and only if he enters his card number on that connection (he might

just be checking shipment status).

Ok, so you personally vouch for the safety of the world. Sounds good

to me!!!

I've seen math people do some weird things to go into denial over my

research.

You think I'm a "math people"? How wrong you are! I don't even read

sci.math.

IT is unfortunately possible that widespread exploits are commonplace

now, and security experts are explaining them all away. If so, then

there really is no way to know what the current security situation is.

For all we know at this point, there is no security currently in place

any more.

As I said, if SSL vanished tomorrow, I doubt it would cause worldwide

panic.

After I felt I had a major breakthrough with the factoring problem I

decided to consider the bigger problem of P vs. NP, so I solved TSP,

using a second traveler moving backwards in time to meet himself

moving forward in time, along the optimal path.

So P=NP, so any asymmetric key system can potentially be broken AND

I've talked about the basic way to get to such answers which is by

introducing additional variables like the "backwards Traveler".

The problem here is that the denial by people like you is not rational

so you refuse to accept mathematical proof!!!

But if I'm right it's not necessary for me to factor some large number

at your request.

With hackers worldwide moving into and out of systems, at

will.

Very doubtful that it's being done by SSL. Remember, even hackers

can get authorized access to most of these servers using their own

accounts (user certificates are not in use).

Hopefully networks are ok, and I find it hard to believe that if there

were serious exploits those would not be noticed and major steps taken

as that's just too weird.

At this point a failure would probably involve the NSA and even the

new US cyber-command. And it would be a MASSIVE intelligence

failure. Possibly the biggest in the history of the world.

I go back and forth with myself on this subject, but I also know that

people can do the darndest things when it comes to rationalization.

The common real world example is Adolph Hitler who refused to accept

that German codes had been broken. That was critical in World War II,

and keeping such information hidden from him was critical to the

Allies.

If hackers have completely breached world networks then why would they

let you know? But then, how could they NOT let you know?

But that's an endless moot argument around speculation. What is NOT

speculation is that there is not currently accepted a general

probabilistic method for solving quadratic residues modulo N, and I've

given one.

It IS generally accepted I believe that such a thing is also a

solution to the factoring problem.

See? Two different things. So I have a two-fer.

YES! If you wish you can loudly proclaim that solving quadratic

residues modulo N is just boring math that isn't interesting to people

like you!

James Harris

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: JSH: My view on factoring problem situation***From:*Bruce Stephens

**References**:

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [JSH] Factoring to solve quadratic residues** - Next by Date:
**Re: Factoring to solve quadratic residues** - Previous by thread:
**Re: JSH: My view on factoring problem situation** - Next by thread:
**Re: JSH: My view on factoring problem situation** - Index(es):