Re: JSH: But it just amazes me



On Nov 10, 11:03 am, Enrico <ungerne...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 10, 11:04 am, rossum <rossu...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:23:43 -0800 (PST), JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Enrico just had problems.  I DID find the answer using my approach but
further out than I'd like which made me wonder about the probability
that I've said is associated with it.

Why did you have to wonder James?  Could it be that you just tried
your method on a couple of small examples and thought that it looked
as if the probability was about 50% without actually checking on
enough examples to be sure?  

But it IS a probabilistic approach yet I don't want to use that
to ignore surprisingly bad outcomes.

Then you need to test it over a wide range of values and actually see
what probability you get.  What results do you get from testing it on
50,000 values in the range 10,000 to 2,000,000 for example?

What amazes me is how giddy people like you clearly get with even the
hint that I'm wrong versus wishing that someone, anyone, would find
something new and interesting.

What amazes us James is that you claim such immense importance for
results that you have obviously spent all of five minutes checking.
We know from previous experience that your initial version of anything
is almost certain to have errors in it; that has been the case for as
long as I have been following your work.  You have cried "wolf" a
great many times, only to say "Whoops, I found a mistake."

So ONE LITTLE appearance of an issue and you're stomping and shouting
and hollering with glee.

Because it was you who were stomping and shouting and hollering with
glee because you had solved the factoring problem and how we were all
going to have to appear before the SCotUS to justify ourselves.  You
holler at us and we will holler straight back.  You are reaping what
you sowed earlier James.

But the method worked.  It's actually a bit scarier now as there is
increasing evidence that it is actually is a valid approach.

No James.  Your method finds a solution, but it finds that solution no
faster than existing methods.  Speed is of the essence James.  We
already have plenty of slow solutions; we are now looking for fast
solutions.  You have not shown that your latest solution is fast.

rossum

James Harris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

====================================================

One thing still missing from James' method is how j is selected.

                                                  Enrico

No, not really. There are size issues as T needs to be roughly equal
to N^2 for 50% probability with a=1, which I knew from the surrogate
factoring research, but kind of forgot.

You should have seen that in your results where as N gets bigger it
takes longer and longer to get an answer, kind of like there are zones
where you CANNOT get the answer, as there are zones where answers are
far less likely.


James Harris

.