Modulus, Factoring and Compressing random data

[Ernst]

Hey all..

I'm putting in hours of chair time exploring the nature of
information and my attention has turned to Modulus.

I see here, through results I wasn't expecting, that modulus is used
for factoring. I noticed the odd ends in one or zero to the sequences
and thought hey that is cool!
Turns out this is the basis of many factoring efforts.

I'm hoping for input and conversation. In return I will moderate my
output so that it functions in a communal setting.

I love to explore so I was looking at the sequence of reminders when
they are reused as the modulus.

So N mod M = A then N mod A = B and so on. It ends in 1 or 0. In
simpler terms it finds a factor or it doesn't of N

Is that the basic concept behind all the Modulus based factoring?
I see names such as Fermat and Euler plus Wikipedia has a nice page
on factoring large numbers.

So, May I ask if anyone has heard of factoring with recursive modulus
as i have stated?
It must be common knowledge I assume.

This is a clear idea of what I am asking.

I was reading about using value about half the N to start.

N = 14600207906227040223 mod 2^32 = 1233334239
N mod 1233334239 = 647107860
48743583
17046876
15135939
601545, 209958,16905, 8988, 3927, 2898, 777, 441 , 21, 0

So 3*7 are factors of N

When the sequence ends in 1,0 I believe there are no factors.


I see that searching for factors through changing the M takes a long
time.


So, I am interested in using the Modulus in creative ways and I
welcome input. I rarely use Modulus with the "things" I do but it
looks like I'm moving that way.

There is something more obvious to this. Can anyone see it?

Think Data compression.

Ernst

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 24, 12:46 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Think Data compression.

Talk is cheap, show a working example.

[Ernst]

On Jan 24, 1:03 pm, Earl_Colby_Pottinger

Specify:

[jacko]

He wants a program he can use. For free.

I want to know how the phi(n) != n issue is takled.

Cheers Jacko

[Ernst]

I take it I am on to something?

Y'all got to be people here friends.

What is "Takled" besides that what is your query? You write " I want
to know how the phi(n) != n issue is takled." What is this?

I am reporting my discovery and asking for input. That is the sincere
of it. I do get the magnitude but not the specifics of instance.
What is your ph(n) != n ? Is it a Theorem or some limit?

You can trust me when I say I came across this in my ventures.

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 24, 7:49 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 3:25 pm, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > He wants a program he can use. For free.

Nope, I am to willing to steal programming ideas from people smarter
than me, but I write my own code. I use HaikuOS, none of your programs
are of any use to me.

> I take it I am on to something?

No, not in my mind. In-fact I think it is 99.99% probable that you
have nothing.

But if you try to really write the code then you will either learn
from your mistakes or you will prove me wrong and in turn I will learn
from what you have discovered, so either way it is a win-win for me.

But if all you do is type up empty claims there is no gain for anyone
who spends time reading this thread.

So stop posting empty claims and get coding!

[jacko]

bigger numbers to smaller numbers? No I think you got nothing as phi(n) < n where as numbers the same size to numbers the same size, possibly changing the number of the same size to represent extra information, which maybe part of a third number, ummm, but no I think totients have no use in this, but understand that everything you think of may not relate to compression, and to consider that your mathematical mind is only solving problems of your current preference is under estimating yourself. Totients are extremely important in higher maths, and the current pinnacle relates to modular forms and monster moonshine. The sporadic groups independent of the monster have some correlation with chemical elements which are not naturally occurring.

Cheers Jacko

P.S. Tackled....!

[Ernst]

On Jan 24, 6:55 pm, Earl_Colby_Pottinger

Something is wrong with you Man. I supplied an example and you can do
it with a calculator such as gcalctool 5.32.0. I like the new look of
that calculator..

What seems to be true here is you cannot read or maybe cannot run a
calculator. You can skip more posts Earl.

[Ernst]

This is a page full. I look forward to researching what you wrote.

So from your point of view you have not seen this recursive modulus
used? The rest I am scratching my head about and ready to Google.

So maybe I shall factor million digits? Man, it is like this for me
all the time. In the middle of one and I find another.
Let me give it some thought. Since it looks like I am not getting
shut down here because Recursive Modulus is old news I may need to
write an application. On the other hand it can be proven with a
calculator by anyone.

Okay then if I am the first to present this, I claim discovery. If
not I'm not a problem and only wish to share what I discovered for
myself with others.

I'll check back here for any updates. I didn't see a direct link to
Recursive Modulus. Maybe it's my lucky day.

I assume also that factoring Million digit file as a number 415241
bytes long would create a file smaller than the actual binary number.
Eh, The amount of search time required could prove problematic.

I don't know.


I'll re-read what you wrote. Please stay in touch. You seem to have
insights I don't.

Ernst

[Robert Wessel]

Either I'm not understanding your description, or this doesn't work in
general.

Consider 4295229443 (with prime factors 65537 and 65539). If we start
what I understand the algorithm to be with 65540 (a bit more than the
square root of the original input), it does not appear to lead to
either of the factors (it results in the sequence 65540, 3, 2, 1).

[Ernst]

I agree that there are two possible results which I am considering as
two end states for the sequence.
I see a factor when the sequence ends with the second to last element
in that series is greater than 1. The last element is always 0 from
what I have observed.

So if it sequences to {...1,0} that seems to mean it didn't find a
factor of N for our choice of {N,M}.

What I observed is that, from the data I worked by hand, that either a
factor will show for some values of N mod M or the end of the
recursive modulus sequence will be {1,0}. The sequence of recursive
mods seems to end in either Factor,0 or 1,0

That is what I have observed so far.

Let me try another run on the above example number.
N = 14600207906227040223 M = 2^32 + 5. I have not tried that value
on that number and I just read about 2^n+1 primes

14600207906227040223 mod (2^32+5) = 1416324423
315455760, 53797503, 31482342, 14395305, 1822983, 1135905, 15498,
14637, 8610, 2583, 1722, 861, 0 .

14600207906227040223 / 861 = 16957268183771243

I picked the +5 because it is a type of prime 2^n+1 I just read about
from Wikipedia's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_totient_function


Here is an interesting thing If I divide by 861 all is well and the
answer is 16957268183771243 but then I cannot divide that by 21 which
is the 2^32 result "3*7" and if I try to divide that by 21 it doesn't
divide whole?

That is strange.
So 14600207906227040223 is divisible by 21, 41 and 861 (29^2) but the
dividend is not divisible by other numbers that divide our N.

Look I am sleepy at the moment and am in bed with the Laptop but I'll
work on this. It's interesting

What I see at the moment and don't understand since this can't be
factoring or can it be?
14600207906227040223 is evenly divisible by 841 but that result is not
divisible by 21 after
So N mod 21 = 0, N mod 841 = 0
This is puzzling
A = 14600207906227040223 mod 841
B = 14600207906227040223 mod 21
But A mod 21 = 1 and B mod 841 = 1

That is odd.
There has to be more than one way to factor a number. I am not up on
factoring outside of the Sieve of program I read about in Sedgewick's
book on algorithms years ago.


I appreciate the time you are spending on this.



However N / 21 is not evenly divisible

[Ernst]

On Jan 24, 10:09 pm, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Pardon the double reply but I tried to correct my errors and posted a
second post but I don't see it. I assume it will show up in a bit.

Quotient is the noun I was referring to..

I'm tired.. Okay I'll check in tomorrow.
And again I will write a program tomorrow to explore factoring Million
Digit file. I think I understand enough to do so.

Okay then forgive any confusion in my posts and I'll check back
tomorrow.

Ernst

[Robert Wessel]

Errr.... 841 does not divide evenly into 14600207906227040223. *861*
does divide into it evenly, but as 861 (3*7*41) includes the sole
factors of three and seven in that number, the result of dividing by
861 will no longer divide evenly by three or seven (or, obviously, by
21).

FWIW, the prime factors are:

3*7*41*27947*229771*2640739

And indeed there are many ways of factoring a number, techniques for
factoring very large numbers are often quite involved (follow the link
below to the discussion of the GNFS), and are often at least a bit
probabilistic. Given the immense importance (if you can factor
large-ish numbers with reasonable effort, you break RSA, and almost
all "secure" communication over the Internet), this has been a huge
area of study.

For an overview, start at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization

[Ernst]

> from Wikipedia's pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_totient_function

>
> Here is an interesting thing If I divide by 861 all is well and the
> answer is 16957268183771243 but then I cannot divide that by 21 which
> is the 2^32 result "3*7" and if I try to divide that by 21 it doesn't
> divide whole?
>
> That is strange.
> So 14600207906227040223 is divisible by 21, 41 and 861 (29^2) but the
> dividend is not divisible by other numbers that divide our N.
>
> Look I am sleepy at the moment and am in bed with the Laptop but I'll
> work on this.  It's interesting
>
> What I see at the moment and don't understand since this can't be
> factoring or can it be?
> 14600207906227040223 is evenly divisible by 841 but that result is not
> divisible by 21 after
> So N mod 21 = 0, N mod 841 = 0
> This is puzzling
> A =  14600207906227040223 mod 841
> B = 14600207906227040223 mod 21
> But A mod 21 = 1 and B mod 841 = 1
>
> That is odd.
> There has to be more than one way to factor a number.  I am not up on
> factoring outside of the Sieve of program I read about in Sedgewick's
> book on algorithms years ago.
>
> I appreciate the time you are spending on this

I didn't go over the post before my cat decided to press return for
me.

I'll leave this here then. I didn't check for errors in the above
post and am ready to sleep.

I think I will write a program tomorrow to test my conjecture that
this will uncover factors and see what I get on Million digit file.
That will give me incentive to add another project to my stack of
projects.

I'll see about it factoring million digit as my goal.


What the hell. Why not?

[Ernst]

On Jan 24, 10:09 pm, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I can't sleep for some reason and just wrote a program that find those
two factors.
It turns out that many but not all series will find the factors.
Here is a snippet of a really huge list.

Factor found 65539 for N of 4290117401
Factor found 65537 for N of 4290052020
Factor found 65539 for N of 4290051862
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289986483
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289986323
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289920946
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289920784
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289855409
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289855245
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289789872
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289789706
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289724335
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289724167
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289658798
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289658628
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289593261
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289593089
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289585338
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289527724
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289527550
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289462187
Factor found 65539 for N of 4289462011
Factor found 65537 for N of 4289396650

Feel free to try any of those numbers.

I really believe this find factors.

Okay cool. I'll get on the BigNum version next.

So our M can start at N-1 and we will find the factors.

So, guys has anyone seen this recursive modulus before?


Ernst

[Ernst]

> >from Wikipedia's pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_totient_function

Thanks for replying.

Yes I was sloppy with my post and numbers. I am often a bit lax but,
I will try and do better so our conversation looks good and is easy to
understand.

I multiplied your number times 14713 another prime. I see all three
in the stream.

I think I'll do some of the RSA numbers tomorrow.

Factor found 65537 for N of 63195710532711
Factor found 65539 for N of 63195710532703
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710532699
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710532072
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710532032
Factor found 65539 for N of 63195710530899
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710530408
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710530205
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710530025
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710529574
Factor found 14713 for N of 63195710528496

[Ernst]

On Jan 25, 12:28 am, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:51:37 -0800 (PST), Ernst
>

Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887505
Factor found 7 for N of 14600207906226887504
Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887503
Factor found 3 for N of 14600207906226887502
Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887501
Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887500
Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887499
Factor found 861 for N of 14600207906226887498
Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887497
Factor found 21 for N of 14600207906226887496
Factor found 3 for N of 14600207906226887495


Yes the factors show up.

Okay cool, I know what I am doing tomorrow.

[Robert Wessel]

What are you using for a starting point, and how are you picking it?

>I really believe this find factors.
>
> Okay cool. I'll get on the BigNum version next.
>
> So our M can start at N-1 and we will find the factors.

That would result in not finding any: N mod (N-1) will always be 1.

> So, guys has anyone seen this recursive modulus before?

I can't say I have, but it looks like it might be related to a form of
one of the algebraic-group factorization algorithms.

But it strikes my that it appears to have difficulties in precisely
the situation where we're most interested - where a prime is a
composite of two factors roughly equal in size. And that, BTW, is
precisely where the algebraic-group algorithms break down - they don't
do well on strong primes.

But while this apparently finds some factors, it's less than useful
without some characterization of when it works (since it clearly
doesn't always work).

[Ernst]

Okay, I appreciate that. I am still up after giving up on sleeping
for a few.
RSA 2048 is running now.
I think I have the bugs out but I will review and test the code again
later.
.
I ran a 64 bit numbers through and was seeing what I expected.

I believe this method works for all integers. The question is how
long will it take.
I'll be looking over the code and make sure it works as expected.

I'm going to give it a good shot. Now time for some sleep. If I
can.

[Ernst]

On Jan 25, 3:25 am, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 02:40:08 -0800 (PST), Ernst
>
>
>

> That would result in not finding any:  N mod (N-1) will always be 1.
>
> > So, guys has anyone seen this recursive modulus before?
>
> I can't say I have, but it looks like it might be related to a form of
> one of the algebraic-group factorization algorithms.
>
> But it strikes my that it appears to have difficulties in precisely
> the situation where we're most interested - where a prime is a
> composite of two factors roughly equal in size.  And that, BTW, is
> precisely where the algebraic-group algorithms break down - they don't
> do well on strong primes.
>
> But while this apparently finds some factors, it's less than useful
> without some characterization of when it works (since it clearly
> doesn't always work).

Thanks for your posts Robert. I am a bit more rested now. What a day
yesterday was.
As for value to start you asked. I am referencing RSA2048 so I have
simply used the other RSA numbers. They are shorter strings. Perhaps
there is an educated guess or maybe a mathematical better way to
determine a start value. Nothing comes to mind right now. My first
assumption of about half is kinda out.

With RSA2048 I have no clue where to start with the value for M. All
I know from yesterday is once it hits some range of value relative it
start reporting factors. I am also guessing that RSA2048 will stay
quiet for a long time. As you say strong Prime is an issue.

So far not a peep out of three instances of this quickly written
factor-search version. I am simply deincrementing the M of N mod M
and looking for "A factor" which is all we need for factoring RSA2048.

I need to check the software over again and write a version that can
factor million digit file.

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 25, 3:12 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>  I need to check the software over again and write a version that can
> factor million digit file.

Can I assume you are using the numbers shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers
?

Since the answers are given for some of the simpler number it will
make for a quick confirmation that your program is working properly.

And of you really want to wow the people here, factor one of the
unsolved numbers.

[James Dow Allen]

On Jan 26, 4:32 am, Earl_Colby_Pottinger
<earlcolby.pottin...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> ... assume you are using the numbers shown inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers
> ? ...
>
> And [i]f you really want to wow the people here, factor one of the
> unsolved numbers.

The article does state that some numbers have not
been factored, but may I assume that anyone with
access to (secret?) RSA Lab records would know the
two factors?

[Ernst]

On Jan 25, 1:32 pm, Earl_Colby_Pottinger

<earlcolby.pottin...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 3:12 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >  I need to check the software over again and write a version that can
> > factor million digit file.
>

> Can I assume you are using the numbers shown inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_numbers

> ?
>
> Since the answers are given for some of the simpler number it will
> make for a quick confirmation that your program is working properly.
>
> And of you really want to wow the people here, factor one of the
> unsolved numbers.

Well this is a learning phase. I came here and asked first.

That is an excellent idea on the smaller factored RSA's I ran some
of the 64 bit numbers and found the same data of factors using the GMP
version.

I have to admit I have not had time today to check the program over
again.

I will make time tonight.

Just to remind folks. This is an exploration into what Recursive
modulus is and what it does and doesn't do. I made the discovery
three days ago and I thought I was simply rediscovering old news.

What it seems to do at least for 64 bit values is exit the recursive
modulus, ie become a zero result, and if the previous value was
greater than 1 there is a factor.

Now Robert suggested that this approach suffers the same fate as other
efforts when it comes to large primes such as RSA2048 and that may
well be true.
I'll have more to say on the utility of what I cobbled together
yesterday and admit I have not tested well enough.

Here is the basic idea for those who are following what I do and want
more information.

z = 4295229443u;

for(x=z-1; x > 1; x-- )
{
y = z % x; prev = y;
for(;;){ if( y>0 ){ y = z % prev; if(y>0)prev = y;} else break; }
if( y == 0 & prev > 1 ) { printf("Factor found %lu for N of %lu
\n",prev,x); }

}

Z is the number we are looking for a factor of, our N of N mod M
Not knowing what is best for M I simply scale N and it's okay for
small numbers but the search time for really large numbers .. well
there in is what Robert is referencing I believe.

The use the already factored RSA's is an excellent suggestion for
debugging. I'll get on it in a few hours.

This is what it is but I smile at the thought of wow-ing our friends.

Again I'll have time to work later tonight. This isn't that
complicated but that doesn't mean I have a flaw in my GMP code when
the non-GMP code worked right.

[Robert Wessel]

Why would you assume that? It's possible, but why keep that
information, especially if you're going to offer cash prizes for
factoring? Having the answers would just encourage bad behavior. And
once somebody proposes an answer, checking it is trivial.

Consider that no one keeps the primes that go into generating a RSA
key pair either.

[Ernst]

On Jan 25, 3:43 pm, Robert Wessel <robertwess...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:33:59 -0800 (PST), James Dow Allen
>

Just tagging on to the end Robert. Pardon the reply to your
conversation with James.

Update guys.. Yes I had a flaw in the code. You see as it was
written I was testing a previous state and if the number at6 the start
of the cycle is a factor no previous state exists yet the residual
state from the previous cycle was telling it this was a sequence that
ended in 1,0 not Factor,0.

I just ran RSA576 and increased "factor" from an ending of 3317 to
4000 so it would run a bit before it found an answer. It stopped on
que.

if anyone wants a print out of sequences for RSA576 I can do that. I
would post sequence here except it's a lot of text.

Okay I can start again. I am open to suggestions for intelligent
picks of M in N mod M oh and previous print outs states "For N" but it
should have been "For M" in case any one is confused by my printout
and N mod M I will refer to RM as N mod M

Robert have you written any code with RM in it? I kinda got the
feeling you had written a few lines yesterday.
I am unsure if this will be brute force of if a factor will show for
"large prime x prime" If the functioning holds for large as well as
small then it would show up in sequence rather than as a starting
value for a cycle.

Alright.. It's still fun today but what will I do tomorrow?

Ernst

[Ernst]

I was just thinking that if RSA2048 is prime then if I multiply it by a prime I should see only it and the prime I multiplied against in the stream.

Does that sound reasonable?

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 25, 10:00 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>  I just ran RSA576 and increased "factor" from an ending of 3317 to
> 4000 so it would run a bit before it found an answer. It stopped on
> que.
>
>   if anyone wants a print out of sequences for RSA576 I can do that. I
> would post sequence here except it's a lot of text.

What the heck are you talking about? It is only two numbers!

See http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2096 for them. Now how
about doing a RSA that was not solved? You just have to supply the
two factors, then anyone can test if you have something by multipling
the two numbers. It is a easy test that could be done with paper and
pencil if needed.

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 26, 5:20 am, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  I was just thinking that if RSA2048 is prime then if I multiply it by a prime I should see only it and the prime I multiplied against in the stream.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?

No it is NOT reasonable!

All, repeat ALL the RSA numbers are the result of multiplying TWO very
large prime numbers! That is it! There is no larger sequence of
numbers if you factor a RSA number, there is not any RSA numbers that
are prime numbers. They are all multiples of two large primes only.

So when are you going to try you code on something hard?

[Ernst]

Earl,

I understand that may well be the case but I don't know and unless you worked on that project you don't "KNOW" for sure.

So I'm open minded about it until I do know. That's all. It's innocent enough friend.

You ask when am I to try on something hard? Well, Earl from what I can tell there is no difference in factoring RSA2048 ( which I have three processors searching right now actually ) and say Million Digit file.

Now I need to sit down and write the version that will factor million digit but it's trivial.
Now the forum and you my friends are fond of the put up or shut up on data compression so please note I put up already.
We can skip the traditional shut-ups from here on out. Okay?

Now, Earl, if there is something about recursive modulus I can explain I'll try. Just ask.
How did you like the code segment I posted. Tight loop huh? I like that one myself.

As for coding? I have stopped work on my previous effort and will jump on the factoring band wagon.
Did you want to work with me on it?

Ernst

[Thomas Richter]

Am 27.01.2012 03:52, schrieb Ernst:
> Earl,
>
> I understand that may well be the case but I don't know and unless you worked on that project you don't "KNOW" for sure.

Of course he *knows* for sure. That's the whole point of how RSA works.
It is defined this way.

Factoring by modulus is actually an ancient method, and not a very good
one either, nor a modern one. If you want to have better tests for
prime-testing, look for example for "Factoring by Fermat's method", or
"Factoring by Phi-Method". You find this in Donald Knuth's "The Art of
Programming, Volume 2", for example. It is not hard to implement them,
and they are considerably faster than this.

[Ernst]

Well picking nits is the foundation of arguments..

From my point of view I will be experiencing these "factorings" with an open mind is all.

Thank you for the "links."

Ah, but they are not this.

Ernst

[Ernst]

Oh Tom,

I mentioned that modulus is related as such in what the first post.

But cool that you stopped by if for nothing else but to criticize.
Par for the Comp.Compression course I am afraid but still you bothered.

Thanks

[Ernst]

Okay Friends..

I am comfortable with the recursive modulus.

For better or worse there it is.

I'd like to know if this has already been discovered or not so I can make the proper statements about recursive modulus in the future.

I welcome email as to the truth of who, what and when of the discovery of recursive modulus and factoring.
I understand and have stated that modulus has been and continues to be a tool in factoring numbers.

Also friends realize I came to ask the question innocently enough since, ahem, you guys are my smart friends even if we fight like cats and dogs.

Thanks for everyone's time in reading and replying.
I do have a lot of learning to do about factoring but I am used to diving in the deep end to learn to swim so to speak.

Ernst

[Thomas Richter]

On 28.01.2012 01:13, Ernst wrote:
> Okay Friends..
>
> I am comfortable with the recursive modulus.
>
> For better or worse there it is.
>
> I'd like to know if this has already been discovered or not

It has. Did you read my post above? Actually, one of its applications is
that Euler showed 1732 (yes, it is that ancient) that the Fermat number
F_5 is divisible by 641 (and hence not prime).

[Ernst]

Is it the one where the number is subtracted by one each time?
Would you be so kind as to link-me to the example because I didn't find a reference I could identify when I looked last.

I figure that modulus has been used but I didn't see use of using the remainder over and over until the answer is zero and if the number before is greater than 1 it is a factor.

It's cool if I rediscovered because I actually am trying to do something different than factor. However now that I see how simple this is I am exploring factoring.

So if this has been known forever why then have none of you found at least the first three factors of Million Digit file?
I'm the uneducated one here.

Please link me. I really didn't see or understand then.


Ernst

[Thomas Richter]

Am 28.01.2012 22:59, schrieb Ernst:
> Is it the one where the number is subtracted by one each time?

This is one particular way how a remainder can be computed,though not
the most efficient.

> Would you be so kind as to link-me to the example because I didn't find a reference I could identify when I looked last.

Link? I provided a *book*. You know, these things on paper, find them in
libraries? Old-school information carrier? Actually, for the classical
GCD algorithm, the first volume of Knuth contains quite an extensive
study, but for modulus in general, and for Eulers work, any introductory
book on algebra (*not* linear algebra) would suffice. Look in particular
for the words "Number Rings", because this is what is all behind this.

> So if this has been known forever why then have none of you found at least the first three factors of Million Digit file?

Because nobody cared? What would you do with the first factors of the
file in first place? Or what makes you believe that they can be
reppresented in a more compact way than the number itself?

As stated, for finding factors, there are quite a couple of algorithms,
as stated in Knuth's book, but for numbers that size you need at least
support for "large integers" (GNU BigNum (sp?) comes to my mind), and
probably algorithms more advanced than the ones I quoted, and certainly
a lot more advanced than a simple modulus reduction.

> Please link me. I really didn't see or understand then.

What you need is not a link. It is a course on algebra. You cannot just
learn this from a web page, you need to invest some time of yours. Maybe
a book can help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_integers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_field

contains a very rough introduction, but essentially, the remainders
after division form a mathematical object called "commutative ring",
which means that you can add, subtract and multiply (but not necessarily
divide) within. The properties of the modulus operation, especially how
to split a number into factors by this method then follows from the
properties of these rings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

lists some of them.

[stan]

Thomas Richter wrote:
> Am 28.01.2012 22:59, schrieb Ernst:

<snip>

>> Would you be so kind as to link-me to the example because I didn't
>> find a reference I could identify when I looked last.
>
> Link? I provided a *book*. You know, these things on paper, find them in
> libraries? Old-school information carrier? Actually, for the classical
> GCD algorithm, the first volume of Knuth contains quite an extensive
> study, but for modulus in general, and for Eulers work, any introductory
> book on algebra (*not* linear algebra) would suffice. Look in particular
> for the words "Number Rings", because this is what is all behind
> this.

You might want to look for Discrete math books, we covered quite a bit
of modulus information and did many exercises/proofs. The area is very
well studied and pretty well known.

>> So if this has been known forever why then have none of you found
>> at least the first three factors of Million Digit file?

It's not a good way to factor. As for factors and compression you
might as well count the number of vowels in the filename, they are
approximately equal in relevance.

Put another way, if I give you the factors of the file what do you
intend to do?

[Noob]

Thomas Richter wrote:

> Of course he *knows* for sure. That's the whole point of how RSA works.
> It is defined this way.

David Ireland has written a very good (IMHO) presentation of RSA.

http://www.di-mgt.com.au/rsa_alg.html

To the OP: JSH, king of cranks, has already claimed dominion
over "solving the factoring problem".

http://somemath.blogspot.com/

[Sebastian]

On 28 Jan., 22:59, Ernst wrote:
>
> So if this has been known forever why then have none of you found
> at least the first three factors of Million Digit file?

I don't know whether somebody tried to factor this million digit
number (or smaller chunks of it). But I'm almost sure about that some
people tried to use factorization as part of a general purpose data
compression tool. I just don't know what they were thinking and why
they even tried to do that. My guess is that they were not educated
enough to be able to realize that what they were doing is pointless.

> I'm the uneducated one here.

If you want to learn what data compression is about, go to a library,
grab "Introduction to data compression" by K. Sayood or something like
that, and read it. That's one of the books our coding theory professor
recommended to us students (about 8 years ago or so, when I was in
college). This class and this book was really eye opening. It is
possible, though, that to comprehend the book's content you might have
to brush up some math basics first. It is also possible -- even highly
likely -- that once you understand its content, you will lose interest
in the million digits challange.

Cheers!
SG

[Ernst]

> in the million digits challenge.
>
> Cheers!
> SG

It's a tool I would say. Factoring that is. I haven't worked with
factoring myself but I wish to comfort you that I can code this in
ways I doubt you know about. All of it 1 to 1.
I have never conformed to what is see as standard data compression
methodologies when it comes to million digit challenge, What would be
the point?
I believe every one when it has been said Million Digit is not
compressible. That means everything you know is not enough when it
comes to this Challenge..
That means someone has to "invent" something new.

This challenge gives me something to focus my programming interest
on.
So thanks for the recommendation as always but no book I know tells
me how to invent something new. .
That point is widely ignored too often since conformity is a powerful
force in social settings.
Thanks for replying.

Since you have finished school, have you seen the recursive modulus
method any place? That is a book I wish to read right now.

[Ernst]

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_integershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_field

>
> contains a very rough introduction, but essentially, the remainders
> after division form a mathematical object called "commutative ring",
> which means that you can add, subtract and multiply (but not necessarily
> divide) within. The properties of the modulus operation, especially how
> to split a number into factors by this method then follows from the
> properties of these rings.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic
>
> lists some of them.

Silly Man, a link to the Recursive Modulus method is what I am asking
for. I'd like to read more about this discovery I made. I have no luck
so far locating it with my research.

I figured that you guys would have seen such a thing.

Thanks for the information and I will look into those things.

[Ernst]

It is what it is.. I just want to not claim discovery if I did not
discover this method.
So the question is still on the floor.

Thank you for replying. Thank you for the input on methodologies.

I am giving factoring some thought. I understand that no one
methodology solves every problem. Much like no one man knows
everything.

So, Guys.. I am not debating the utility of modulus in data
compression. I am not going to digest the theory behind modulus like
a scholar. I am a man who is looking to understand how to use this in
practical ways. Also I don't want to tell people I discovered this
method when I didn't.

Fair?

Ernst

[Sebastian]

On 30 Jan., 16:45, Ernst wrote:
>
> I have never conformed to what is see as standard data compression
> methodologies when it comes to million digit challenge,  What would be
> the point?
> I believe every one when it has been said Million Digit is not
> compressible. That means everything you know is not enough when it
> comes to this Challenge..
> That means someone has to "invent" something new.

These books are not only about practical algorithms people came up
with to solve certain problems. They are also about the fundamental
theory which applies to every possible compression "methodology". So,
the well-developed theory also applies to everything you might come up
with. It is simply foolish to dismiss these theoretical data
compression basics.

> So thanks for the recommendation as always but no book I know tells
> me how to invent something new. .
> That point is widely ignored too often since conformity is a powerful
> force in social settings.

This is _exactly_ the kind of talk one can expect from cranks. They
massivly underrate the importance of education. Of course, you are
different. You just want to be a free spirit and keep an open mind.

> have you seen the recursive modulus method any place?

Number theory is not one of my interests.

Cheers!
SG

[Ernst]

So Recursive Modulus is real. No one can point to a reference where
I can read more and I may have made the discovery of the method first.
That's where things are.
Having to prove theory is not necessary. It does a thing and that is
good enough for me.
If you find a reference to someone using the recursive method please
let me know.

That would be helpful.

Thanks for stopping by.. I wondered where you guys were.

Ernst

[Ernst]

On Jan 30, 9:42 am, Sebastian <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh man I missed your bating with the crank label. Do you hate Jews
and Queers too?
So what is so "Crank" about sharing what I discovered?

Who says I won't read those books some time?

What I notice is that having an education doesn't stop people from
being a crank.
But your "crank" is about isolating a class of people and making
yourself look and feel good by dehumanizing others.
I am not making any claims that can't be proven.

So if you were looking for some action at my expense you need to go
fuck yourself first before you get any of me. Cool?

But hey thanks for replying anyway.

Ernst

[Jim Leonard]

On Jan 30, 2:05 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>  Oh man I missed your bating with the crank label. Do you hate Jews
> and Queers too?

I don't think you understand what a Crank is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

[Ernst]

Let me try this again.. Here is your new link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

I believe in working million digits because I already know for a fact
that data is fluid.

The Million digit file is a great data set. Nothing works on it so
methods can be tested against it.
We all know failure in an experiment can be as good as success.
Million Digit file is a really hard case. I like that file. I know
it rather well and I trust it.
I trust it It can be trusted. Rand would say so and so would Mark
Nelson.


Ernst

[stan]

Ernst wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic
>>
>> lists some of them.
>
> Silly Man, a link to the Recursive Modulus method is what I am asking
> for. I'd like to read more about this discovery I made. I have no luck
> so far locating it with my research.

You've been told that the references are in math books, but you have
no interest in reading math books. What you are calling recursive
modulus is not new - you certainly didn't discover it, but I doubt you
will find many current references in the wild about current usage
because it isn't used because their are many better techniques.

You want to tackle a math problem but you don't want to learn anything
about math. Do you honestly expect to get far?

[Ernst]

On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Jim Leonard <mobyga...@gmail.com> wrote:

What link? Better go back and enter it again because Wikipedia seems
to think it's a bad idea too..

And I understand very well.

[Ernst]

How do you know what I have interest in? Freak !

You don't know anything about me.

What is wrong with you people?

Please explain how you know what I want to learn or don't you seem to
want to fight so here it is.

How do you know anything about me?

[Ernst]

On Jan 30, 3:11 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:40 pm, Jim Leonard <mobyga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 2:05 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > >  Oh man I missed your bating with the crank label. Do you hate Jews
> > > and Queers too?
>
> > I don't think you understand what a Crank is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
>

> Let me try this again..  Here is your new linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

>
>  I believe in working million digits because I already know for a fact
> that data is fluid.
>
>  The Million digit file is a great data set.  Nothing works on it so
> methods can be tested against it.
>  We all know failure in an experiment can be as good as success.
> Million Digit file is a really hard case.  I like that file.  I know
> it rather well and I trust it.
>  I trust it  It can be trusted. Rand would say so and so would Mark
> Nelson.
>
>  Ernst

Let me save folks the need to link. I support Wikipedia so I will use
some of that donation right here right now

---
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a
belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1]
A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to
be ludicrous to many. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence
or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making
rational debate an often futile task; this is the essential defining
characteristic of the crank: being impervious to facts, evidence, and
rational inference.

Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs
from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is
either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a
"fringe" belief. Similarly, the word quack is reserved for someone who
promotes a medical remedy or practice that is widely considered to be
ineffective; this term however does not imply any deep belief in the
idea or product they are attempting to sell. Crank may also refer to
an ill-tempered individual or one who is in a bad mood, but that usage
is not the subject of this article.

Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field,
cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of
their views. A famous example is the Indiana Pi Bill where a state
legislature nearly wrote into law a crank result in geometry.

-------------------

So the Example in this thread is a method of finding factors.
It was posted and open to all to examine.

Is it Crank or Fact.. Are you guys assholes or friends?

Let me know..
You are not my peers.

[Ernst]

So are we done yet?

Can I come and ask questions and share news without the crap?

So once again I ask has anyone seen the Recursive Modulus method of
factoring?



Ernst

[Ernst]

On Jan 30, 3:44 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

Stan give me an exact reference.

That is all I am asking. Theory is not what I want. I don't see any
reference to this method.
Are you saying on page such and such it is there or are you saying
that in theory it is covered.

I have done my best to find some reference to Recursive Modulus and I
have not found it.
That Sebastian says read a book is his way of messing with people.
Pulling rank so to speak. It;'s an old fuck dude.

So why not give me an exact reference and I will make the effort to
find the tome.

That is what I am asking.

You guys are saying that is old news so why not help me out?

[Ernst]

Oh and one more thing..

I am not trying to solve a problem.. Prove a theory or jack.. I just
want more information on the method I discovered.
My search fizzled and I thought "hey those guys know a lot so ask
them."

I'm guessing sharing anything I discover here is a bad thing.

Prove me wrong.

And cut the "Kook" or "Crank" shit that is so old it stinks.

[Ernst]

I have been waiting.

What I see is that it looked like a Beat up the Crank sport fight and
then it isn't
You guys are not leading edge and your leaders are not top rated.
This forum will advance if it embraces everyone and stops the weird
control stuuf and kick the crack shit.

So any one what name is the book I should look at least? That the
Recursive method is in.

What more can I do?

Ernst.

[Thomas Richter]

And once again, Euler, 1732. And yes, you find that in math books. In my
particular case, it was a nice homework exercise we got in number theory
that was following a five minute tutorial on the black board. As said, a
lecture on algebra would suffice. It is probably somewhere on the
internet, but I really don't bother why I should do your homework.

[Ernst]

This is why I think you are bullshitting me. I see Euler and his
square method but not recursive modulus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_factorization_method
You say you have seen it and had a class on it. Well good. You also
say you don't know where it is. But still want to say you know where
it is.
I know Euler has factoring. Hell they were transcribing his works long
after he was dead he was so good.Hell I looked at everything I could
before I first posted in this thread.

At least you are trying but I am not asking for theory. I'm not
asking for recommendations for a class to take just a simple reference
so it hardly qualifies as helping me with homework so get over it.
You haven't done all that.

So you say Euler worked the recursive method. I'll keep that in
mind. Maybe you are telling the truth.

I would much rather be nice but I am getting rather thin skinned
after all the years dealing with you guys. Don't expect me to play
nice if you all keep up the labels. I work very hard on this. I am
done taking comp.compression crap.


Thanks

Ernst

[Sebastian]

On 30 Jan., 21:05, Ernst wrote:
> So what is so "Crank" about sharing what I discovered?

The things you wrote I responded to had little to do with sharing
ideas and more with your dismissive attitude towards well-established
fundamental information theory. I get that you feel like these
theories won't be of any use to you, possibly even poisening your
mind. But that's where you are wrong and that's what I was trying to
tell you.

SG

[stan]

Ernst wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:44 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> Ernst wrote:

<snip>

>> You want to tackle a math problem but you don't want to learn anything
>> about math. Do you honestly expect to get far?
> How do you know what I have interest in? Freak !
>
> You don't know anything about me.

I know you spend time posting mathematical questions and claims and
that your understanding of the concepts is all but non existent. I
know you have asked for links to material routinely covered in the
first year or two of an accredited training program. Setting aside
mastering the material, simple exposure to training would have
rendered your questions unnecessary.

I also know that you have stated you are interested in factoring and
in trying to compress the million digit file. You have also, in your
own words, stated you don't want to approach the problem from a
traditional formal path - which results from training and using
established knowledge and techniques.

> What is wrong with you people?

What makes you think anything is "wrong"?

> Please explain how you know what I want to learn or don't you seem to
> want to fight so here it is.

From your own words. You claimed to believe you invented recursive
modulus operations and you stated you were working out how to factor
things such as the million digit file. You asked for links to
information about modulus arithmetic and you were pointed to math
books.

> How do you know anything about me?

Your posts - to a newsgroup interested in compression.

You seem to misinterpret my intentions. I have no intention of
entering an intellectual contest with you. If I choose to I will check
out threads you post, otherwise you will simply vanish from my reader
either way there's no fight or contest. I didn't call you childish
names or attempt to convince you of anything. I asked a question.

I honestly don't understand your plan, or what part you expect this
newsgroup to play. You want to work on factoring - a profoundly
mathematical concept - yet you aren't interested reading math books. I
don't see how that offers any chance of success, hence my question.

I also don't see how this group can be of any help. The majority of
people here have some training and tend to approach mathematical tasks
using established ideas. You claim to want to do something different
and I can't imagine how posting here is of value, it seems very much
like going to a major medical conference of practicing doctors and
trying to discuss voodoo. How could that work?

[stan]

Ernst wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:44 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Stan give me an exact reference.
>
> That is all I am asking. Theory is not what I want. I don't see any
> reference to this method.
> Are you saying on page such and such it is there or are you saying
> that in theory it is covered.

Your terminology here is skewed. Recursive modulus is existing math
theory. Your usage seems to imply you question that fact and consider
the references "theoretical".

My personal books are probably too old to be in print so a page number
won't really help you. Tom mentioned several ideas to which I added
any Discrete math book. A visit to the library or google will turn up
many available references. I believe Rosen has a pretty good Distrete
Math book.

As I mentioned, it was a homework assignment. The treatment in the
text was minimal because the concept has been overcome by more
effective and practical ideas.

> I have done my best to find some reference to Recursive Modulus and I
> have not found it.

Where have you looked?

> That Sebastian says read a book is his way of messing with people.
> Pulling rank so to speak. It;'s an old fuck dude.

I don't get it. Do you want Sebastian or others to read the books for
you? Are you asking that others do the work and report back to you?

> You guys are saying that is old news so why not help me out?

Help was offered, you don't seem to like the answer.

[Earl_Colby_Pottinger]

On Jan 31, 8:10 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 3:44 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

> >  I have done my best to find some reference to Recursive Modulus and I
> > have not found it.

> Where have you looked?

I don't know where he looked, but he did not try very hard. When I
enter 'Recursive Modulus' into Google I get 774K hits with the very
first entry being a math course from Cornell University.

Also lately it seems like he asks questions but dismisses the answers
if they are not what he wants to hear.

This is of-course the type of behaviour associated with cranks and
kooks.

There also is the fact he claims to have a working factoring program,
but still has not factored one of the unsolved RSA numbers to prove
that his program works. Instead he started a claim (only once mind
you, but it shows a mind set) that RSA numbers are not the products of
two and only two prime numbers multiple together.


To Ernst: Stop posting and just factor a RSA number to prove you are
right in your claims. Do that and everyone will WANT to listen to
your ideas no matter how off the beaten path they are.

[Thomas Richter]

On 31.01.2012 12:58, Ernst wrote:

>> And once again, Euler, 1732. And yes, you find that in math books. In my
>> particular case, it was a nice homework exercise we got in number theory
>> that was following a five minute tutorial on the black board. As said, a
>> lecture on algebra would suffice. It is probably somewhere on the
>> internet, but I really don't bother why I should do your homework.
>
> This is why I think you are bullshitting me. I see Euler and his
> square method but not recursive modulus.

I said *books* and *library*. I'm certainly not spoon-feeding you, I
pointed you out where to look, and you refused to look.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_factorization_method
> You say you have seen it and had a class on it. Well good. You also
> say you don't know where it is. But still want to say you know where
> it is.

But I did. Which part do you not understand? Book? Library? Algebra?
Come on, a little bit of research would be absolutely sufficient.

> I know Euler has factoring. Hell they were transcribing his works long
> after he was dead he was so good.Hell I looked at everything I could
> before I first posted in this thread.

Apparently not very thoroughly. Just a hint: If it goes to mathematics,
the internet is not a prime source of wisdom.

> At least you are trying but I am not asking for theory.

But how on earth will you then understand anything if you're not willing
make an investment of your time?

> I'm not
> asking for recommendations for a class to take just a simple reference
> so it hardly qualifies as helping me with homework so get over it.
> You haven't done all that.

But of course I did. Once again, I found several factoring methods in
Donald Knuth's "Art of Programming", Volume 2. At least it is a starting
point for further research if you want to look deeper. Yes, it is a
*book*, and if you start from there, you'll find enough references to
dig deeper if you want to.

> So you say Euler worked the recursive method. I'll keep that in
> mind. Maybe you are telling the truth.

*Sigh*.

> I would much rather be nice but I am getting rather thin skinned
> after all the years dealing with you guys. Don't expect me to play
> nice if you all keep up the labels. I work very hard on this. I am
> done taking comp.compression crap.

That also works for me, really. I believe the minimum one can expect to
do before claiming a "super cool compression theory" is a) to make some
minimal investment to see how it relates to other techniques, and b)
implement it to verify that it works. I often see neither a) nor b) here.

Even though factorization is a powerful technique, though not
necessarily by the ancient modulus method, I do not see how it can be
applied to compression. That's ok, maybe it can in some cases I do not
foresee. But at least you should then know what you're talking about,
and this goes for both the terms *compression* and *factorization*, and
once that is cleared, you should go into the "how" and "when" before
only claiming the "that". "You should know" means that I can certainly
give you pointers as I did, but I will, for sure, not do your homework.

So long,
Thomas

[Ernst]

On Jan 31, 4:31 am, Sebastian <s.gesem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jan., 21:05, Ernst wrote:
>
> > So what is so "Crank" about sharing what I discovered?
>
> The things you wrote I responded to had little to do with sharing
> ideas and more with your dismissive attitude towards well-established
> fundamental information theory. I get that you feel like these

> theories won't be of any use to you, possibly even poisoning your

> mind. But that's where you are wrong and that's what I was trying to
> tell you.
>
> SG

That is a bullshit cover your ass reply.

You are an asshole. You have been an asshole and with this bullshit
explanation you are still being an asshole. You are forgetting I have
been reading you for years.

My new name for you is asshole.

Your full name is Authoritarian Asshole.

You pushed the name calling one too far and you broke it asshole..
This is your fault.
If you guys can call me a Kook or a Crank get ready for me to give
you all names.
Tit for Tat See how you like it.

I am changing the game.

Read you later Mr. Authoritarian Asshole

Ernst

[pfraser]

Ernst wrote:

>
> That is a bullshit cover your ass reply.
>
> You are an asshole. You have been an asshole and with this bullshit
> explanation you are still being an asshole. You are forgetting I have
> been reading you for years.
>
> My new name for you is asshole.
>
> Your full name is Authoritarian Asshole.
>
> You pushed the name calling one too far and you broke it asshole..
> This is your fault.
> If you guys can call me a Kook or a Crank get ready for me to give
> you all names.
> Tit for Tat See how you like it.
>
> I am changing the game.
>
> Read you later Mr. Authoritarian Asshole
>

Eric Cartman? Is that you?

[Ernst]

I hope I did but I thought to ask if that is what you are talking
about.

Say are you assholes lover? Then why worry about his ass?

>
> > How do you know anything about me?
>
> Your posts - to a newsgroup interested in compression.
>
> You seem to misinterpret my intentions. I have no intention of
> entering an intellectual contest with you. If I choose to I will check
> out threads you post, otherwise you will simply vanish from my reader
> either way there's no fight or contest. I didn't call you childish
> names or attempt to convince you of anything. I asked a question.

I hope I discovered a new method. That would be really cool.

No, you are putting yourself in the middle between me and Mr Asshole.
Get out of the way. This is mostly about his actions.
Also you are suggesting that only elite people can be here and say to
that fuck you.


As for what I am guilty of mind your own business and judge yourself.

>
> I honestly don't understand your plan, or what part you expect this
> newsgroup to play. You want to work on factoring - a profoundly
> mathematical concept - yet you aren't interested reading math books. I
> don't see how that offers any chance of success, hence my question.
>

Again how do you know a damn thing about me? You don't get it do ya.

> I also don't see how this group can be of any help. The majority of
> people here have some training and tend to approach mathematical tasks
> using established ideas. You claim to want to do something different
> and I can't imagine how posting here is of value, it seems very much

> like going to a major medical conference of practising doctors and

> trying to discuss voodoo. How could that work?

Answer this, why is it your business why I do what I want?

This is a public forum accessible through google groups.

The days of Usenet being a pure research forum are long gone.

Look you are asking idiot questions you can answer for yourself. You
don't need to get answers from me.

So stop worrying about me and go on with life. I can handle Mr.
Authoritarian
Asshole myself.
Let's see if he like being labelled for a few years or maybe life.
He can dish it out but can he take it.
I am not going anywhere so get over it. I have as much right to use
this group and anyone does. I don't have to get anyone's approval.

That goes for you all.. Play nice and I will play nice call me names
and get fucked.

You guys do it to me so enjoy the taste of me.

Ernst

[Ernst]

I come here because this is a public forum about data compression.

That anyone likes or doesn't like it or me or any class of person in
not relevant.

I know that Usenet moving from a private network to a public network
ruined things for a lot of people.

However, this is what it is now. A place for people to come and talk
about data compression.
There are no pre-qualifications to use this public forum.

I will be ready to defend myself here but i am not going.

[stan]

Ernst wrote:

<snip>

> That goes for you all.. Play nice and I will play nice call me names
> and get fucked.

I haven't called you anything, even my children grew out of that long
ago. Your plan for advancing mathematics was perplexing but any idea
that your behavior will get anyone to help you is delusional.

> You guys do it to me so enjoy the taste of me.

You're funny.

[Ernst]

On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> Ernst wrote:

Your plan for advancing mathematics was perplexing

Oh my bad.. I missed this point. I don't think reporting a result
and asking for clarification of who discovered it is actually
advancing mathematics since it is true that modulus has been part of
many factoring efforts but it sure is a compact function and will
factor numbers of any size.
As Robert points out, I think it was Robert, that what I have called
recursive modulus has similar time issues as other efforts. I believe
there is a thing called polynomial time? That non-quantum efforts
factoring of really large numbers such as RSA2048 take forever. Geez
I hope I remembered that correctly.
Well this RM takes forever when the number is really huge and may be
prime or product of two primes of similar size such as RSA's.
I was lucky that Million Digit file finished in a few seconds. It
was the only easy thing about Million Digit data set so far.
Note: I don't know yet if the third factor which is almost 1 million
digits is prime or composite. I ran GMP's functions and ran the
recursive modulus until I was getting lock-ups due to CPU heat
issues. It's getting old. I have run that cpu for 2 years. So a new
cpu for that and a new machine on the way.
I will take delivery of a new machine this week so I look forward to
running some factoring efforts in the background. What the heck..
If I can get within a short distance to one of the primes of RSA2048
this RM will find that factor.

So what do you do? Do you do data compression for your work?
You say you have family that is good.. Savor the days because they
grow up so fast.
I am a welder/mechanic myself and I have friends in low places.

Ernst

[Ernst]

On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

I hope to invent a method of compressing dense data.
Before I saw that factoring I was trying to generate a hash that could
select one string out of two million or so strings.

Well I can be nice if you like.. Just don't ride my ass. Don't ;label
me. Simple general respect. But from now on if I see it I'm going to
jump on it. Gloves are off.

Is there anything else? Do you like that recursive modulus?
It's cool huh.

You are trying to befriend me right?

Ernst

[Noob]

pfraser wrote:

> Eric Cartman? Is that you?

"You WILL respect my AUTHORITY."

[Sebastian]

On 1 Feb., 03:51, Ernst wrote:
> I hope to invent a method of compressing dense data.

What kind of "dense data" are you targeting and what does this have to
do with factoring?

[stan]

Ernst wrote:

> That anyone likes or doesn't like it or me or any class of person in
> not relevant.

You take things way to personal and that's not helpful in a public forum.

> I know that Usenet moving from a private network to a public network
> ruined things for a lot of people.

Usenet was never private, anyone who could get on the net could jump
in. The other constant is that bad behavior has existed from the
beginning. It's why newsreaders have twit filters.

[stan]

Ernst wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> Ernst wrote:
>
> Your plan for advancing mathematics was perplexing
>
> Oh my bad.. I missed this point. I don't think reporting a result
> and asking for clarification of who discovered it is actually
> advancing mathematics since it is true that modulus has been part of
> many factoring efforts but it sure is a compact function and will
> factor numbers of any size.

The modulus is a very old idea and well plowed ground. Very smart and
clever people have been interested in factoring for a long time and in
modern times interest has grown to nearly a white hot fever because of
cryptography. Factoring big numbers is an open problem and I certainly
don't claim any ability to know the one true path to a possible
solution. I do know congruences have been considered and better
methods found. Today many better techniques are available and well
understood, but the race to a factoring solution isn't over yet.

I honestly don't see any useful connection between
factoring and compression but there's many things I don't see.

My confusion regarding your plan was how you intend to make progress
in a well studied specialized field without looking at the existing
knowledge and experience. Without at least awareness of past mistakes
and dead ends it seems reasonable to predict you will waste much time
repeating old, known mistakes.

> So what do you do? Do you do data compression for your work?

I'm semi-retired from the government. Let's just say I've been
interested in compression for a long time.

On a side note, I don't think you really understand that many of the
top compression people have been known to pop in from time to time and
some of the people you are sparring with are at the top of the food
chain in the compression world. The knowledge and experience available
here is an amazing resource. My grandma always told me to be careful
of the bridges you burn; I think that's sound advice.

> You say you have family that is good.. Savor the days because they
> grow up so fast.

My grandchildren are nearly grown.

[stan]

Ernst wrote:
> On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> Ernst wrote:
>>
> I hope to invent a method of compressing dense data.
> Before I saw that factoring I was trying to generate a hash that could
> select one string out of two million or so strings.

I don't know what you mean by "dense data". I don't see how factors
are meaningful. Lets say you find 2 or 3 or n factors. What are you
going to do next?

> Well I can be nice if you like.. Just don't ride my ass. Don't ;label
> me. Simple general respect. But from now on if I see it I'm going to
> jump on it. Gloves are off.

Usenet will be uncomfortable or very fertile, as you prefer, with that
chip on your shoulder. I tend to ignore childish behavior but when I
occasionally get dragged in it's never satisfactory so my regressions
don't last long. As they say, when you wrestle a pig you just get
muddy and the pig likes it.

I don't know anything about google's interface to news groups so I
don't know if you are aware, but the vast majority of long time usenet
people (and the ones with the most to offer) are using standalone
readers. These readers can make people disappear with a keystroke. You
can still post and you are visible to the public but you can be easily
cut off from the most valuable information. In fact many people,
myself included simply ignore any post from google groups by general
principle. I'm offering this information as FWIW, do what you like.

I only saw your recent posts because I recently changed my filter, but
it's unlikely to stay open for long. The signal to noise ratio is
nearly unbearable and I don't really have the time to weed through
most of what comes through google.

> Is there anything else? Do you like that recursive modulus?
> It's cool huh.

Actually I consider it just another tool, like division or
multiplication.

> You are trying to befriend me right?

I was trying to engage in an adult, civilized conversation - I simply
asked a couple of questions.

[Ernst]

Hey Mr. Asshole good day sir!

You already know all dense data but fuck off man I have had enough of
you for a long time.
Years I come here and years you are a dick to me.

So go be a thought Nazi some where else my good man.


Ernst

[Ernst]

On Feb 1, 4:47 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> Ernst wrote:
> > That anyone likes or doesn't like it or me or any class of person in
> > not relevant.
>
> You take things way to personal and that's not helpful in a public forum.

I have had enough is what is real here.

I have come here many years and it is always this Thought Nazi game
shit.

So let it play out.
You guys made this game and I am playing it my way.

If you guys do not want this outcome you need to code for a better
codec. That is all. This forum's codec includes offending people and
name calling plus a lot of elitism.
So now you say that when the one who is singled out and made fun of
hets mad that is bad.. Ha-ha.

Just because a man has an education that doesn't mean he isn't an
asshole.

[Ernst]

On Feb 1, 5:24 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> Ernst wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 4:06 pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> >> Ernst wrote:
>
> >  Your plan for advancing mathematics was perplexing
>
> >  Oh my bad.. I missed this point.  I don't think reporting a result
> > and asking for clarification of who discovered it is actually
> > advancing mathematics since it is true that modulus has been part of
> > many factoring efforts but it sure is a compact function and will
> > factor numbers of any size.
>
> The modulus is a very old idea and well plowed ground. Very smart and
> clever people have been interested in factoring for a long time and in
> modern times interest has grown to nearly a white hot fever because of
> cryptography. Factoring big numbers is an open problem and I certainly
> don't claim any ability to know the one true path to a possible
> solution.

So there is you slight. Embellish and label . You don't see it do
ya.. You guys have been drinking the same cool-aid for so long that
you all lay the ground work for Thought Nazi-ism

I came I shared and I hoped to socialize with people who work with
data and encoding.
My data set is Million Digit file not all files and so I am a bad
person. Flawed by the standards of the Thought Nazis here.

So from the start I am selected to be made the one who gets kicked by
default and yes I have had enough.

So where do we go from here.

Remember I have posed a finding and am socializing and this is the
level of social acceptance I get as one who is labelled and
dehumanized by the acts of those who moderate here.

You cannot point to even one post where I tell people their ideas are
stupid and they are cranks. I am innocent are you?
Mr. Asshole isn't innocent he is what I call in street terms a slut at
it.
So this is shocking I am sure but if a man cannot rise up and counter
thought oppression he is a slave.
Just imagine me as Mel Gibson in Braveheart...


I'm going out and I see your post deserves a better reply more on
topic so I will reply again later.

Have a nice day.

[Jim Leonard]

On Feb 1, 7:24 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> I honestly don't see any useful connection between
> factoring and compression but there's many things I don't see.

I think Ernst assumes that the factors of a very large number will
take up less data space than the end result. Because the end result
of a multiplication is always the same size (in bits) or *smaller*
than the size (in bits) of the multiplicands, this can never work.
For example:

I have a number: 44253432, a 26-bit number
(10101000110100000011111000)
Its factors are 123, 456, and 789.
123 is a 7-bit number
456 is a 9-bit number
789 is a 10-bit number
7+9+10 = 26 bits

It takes at least N bits to represent an N-bit value using the
factorization method. Some rudimentary playing around with a
calculator and 16-bit factors further illustrates this:

Multiply the two largest 16-bit numbers and the end result is a 32-bit
number:
65535*65535=4294836225
65535 = 00000000000000001111111111111111
4294836225 = 11111111111111100000000000000001

Multiply the two smallest 16-bit numbers and the end result is a 31-
bit number:
32768*32768=1073741824
32768 = 00000000000000001000000000000000
1073741824 = 01000000000000000000000000000000

It is a shame Ernst did not verify this before starting his work.

[Ernst]

I love the humor.

I had a busy day friends. I did get the new quad-core and it
wouldn't boot since I bet the Phenom II is not the same as the pre-
Phenom quads' and tris' were a bit different and mother boards don't
all have a front bus according to the technician I had do the work.

This reply is as good as any to say what I have to say today.

I thought about the social conflict that happens here. The Kooks,
Morons and Cranks that are such an issue that some feel they can take
liberty.

There are two classifications I cam up with. Two is an easy number
but doesn't completely define the kinds of people that have come here
in the past ten years. I will have been involved in some way with
this forum for ten years come June 2012.

I see a classification based on the professional science person and
the non-professional person.
That isn't to say that there is only one kind; such as, you are a
science or kook. No I am saying that there are those to who the rules
of the scientific community where what the do, say and publish makes
ore breaks them. This I beleve is the root of the label Kook or Crank.
I can understand how frightening it must be to find oneself who is
trying to make a career in the sciences to be judged to be something
less than a success. Maybe even worse. On that an entire philosophy
and perhaps an issue of measure is defined.
So to call someone a kook or a crank actually depends on one being a
peer. A peer is the scientific realm relative to that philosophy or
measure. This would also be the foundation of social structure with
those hoping to get a career in the sciences such as the young. I am
sure the University experience is wonderful as are those who are
sincerely the product of education. However, that is but one side of
the two I mentioned.

The other side is where the common people come in. This traditional
excluded from the Usenet in it's infancy for example but not limited
to any one walk of life.
Those who come here have ideas that may not coincide with established
norms or even accepted scientific results. Thus the label of Kook or
Crank is applied in some cases.
The main difference is that for Scientific side there are Peers and
on Common people side there is Friends.
The two have to live together here I conjecture or there will always
be war.

I am not a Peer. I'd like to think I could be but my life is half
over and the best I have done is work for hourly wages.
What I always hope for when I come to comp.compression is I can have
a warm friend experience because I am in between to planes of
existence metaphorically. By that colorful descriptor I mean that my
Mother's prediction has come true.
My Mother told me when I was 17 or so that I would be the smartest
Okie on the bus when I was grown. It was a metaphor I never forgot
and bless her heart it is a story her stroke took from here memory and
she laughed again to hear the prediction she made all those years ago
when we spoke yesterday.
Now that is really where and who I am. I am a working class non-
science working class man.
That often means I am thinking about and interested in things better
associated with a science professional. That often puts me at odds
with my neighbours and co-workers.
I mean who casually slips into conversation about data compression or
encoding as they mop floors or weld steel beams? It's the odd
smartest okie on the bus that become alone there to be really honest.

Then I try to come here for example or other forums and interact to
gain that which we all want.

So There is a difference between the science professional and that
psychology and the bus rid the rest of us take but, that doesn't mean
that good things come from only those in the science classification.

So if people like Sebastian and other enforce the rules of the
science professional world on the non-science professionals we get
this Mr. Asshole result.

There has to be a balance between abstract and precision that accepts
both.

I hope this is a well thought out post.

I have always valued this forum and I am not able to appreciate the
width and breath of all the things I assume many of the official
scientific types collectively have been exposed to and have access to
in their daily employment or relative activities. Indeed it is good
that we have people who are able to do such but they are not all
people hence the second classification of non-peer types where the
logic of motives become more fuzzy and the labels of Kook and Crank,
to name a couple, become tools.

So I am the smarted okie on the bus and I am not a peer. I have been
in and out here for 10 years and yes I work on the Million Digit
challenge. That Challenge is considered Crank and Kook if you are a
Peer and so without differentiation we have become lazy and seek to
blurr the line and simply judge blindly.

So there I hope is a goodly input of calm and compassionate thought
aimed at peace rather than war.

Thanks..

On my reporting the factoring method.. Count the number of
congratulations I got. Not one because I am being treated as a Peer
and not a Friend.

There is a difference for me because this is my passion and hobby not
my hope of a career in limbo. Hence I cannot be a crank or a kook but
I can be discriminated against in this forum over the years. I can be
cheated of friendship and community and labelled by the very people we
hope are smart enough to be the actual science types.

Think for a minute that perhaps I have no other contact with those
who can understand my hobby and say that to come and get an
interaction that the smartest okie has to get spanked like the guys in
Animal House every time and you see why I have decided that after
fighting with Sebastian year after year and having someone who is a
science type kick me to the curb on peer-review standards is really
wrong. He just couldn't resist doing it again and again habitually
but actuality in a rote sense.

So Now you guys know more about me. I am not about to quit trying
this challenge after all these years and I am not in a career about
it.

I will post this now and hope for the best.

It is Friends vs Peers it is Common vs Professional and we all must
get along.

Names such as Kook and crank are for those who are professional types
if you haven't noticed :) Pun intended.

Ernst

[Ernst]

On Feb 1, 4:47 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

Stan if you pick and choose what you answer you look to me like a
pacing cat.

Who are you, what do you do.. You have to get human friend or do
something else.
You can't say you are against fighting while you pick a fight.

I am a welder/mechanic.

Ernst

[Ernst]

So if you had to pick Professional Science or Common person you would
say you are a "Smarted Okie on the bus?" I'd say so.

Okay I agree that it shouldn't be a fight but Sebastian is not
innocent and was warned last year. he seems to have had to push it ya-
know.. maybe just wanted to trash any achievement an "okie" could make
since I am not a Peer and he may want to keep it that way.
I wondered if he father beat him or his mother had conditional love
based on his achievements.. I wonder is all.

So where do you and I stand? Are you just hoping for some action?

[Ernst]

I can't deal with the volume of your input so no disrespect I'm simply
tired. The quad-core came and it didn't boot so I am still struggling
with the karma of late but it has shifted and I can feel it so all is
well.
I wish to reply to your last paragraph.
You must hope to be a science professional because you seem you cannot
bond as per your last paragraph.
Please take time to consider the two classes I suggest as a though
exercise.
I am a friend not a peer and so judging and punishing me as a peer is
wrong.

I'll check back. I want you to know that you have many good points i
can reply to however until we build a bridge as friends we have no
option other than war.

I hope you have good luck with the science community. They can be
assholes.

Ernst.

[Ernst]

No Jim that is not true. This thread is about reporting something I
saw as a by-product of designing a hash code. You have to admit that
if all the intermediate results are strung together as a binary string
it offers a lot of data to work with and that was the attraction.
However, I welcome the adjunct if you retract the singling out for
ridicule. I am a Friend not a Peer.

What do you say? Can you do it?

Ernst

[jacko]

Basically SG is saying compression (C) is impossible because assuming C and assuming certain properties of C (P) being a secondary implicit assumption, leads to a contradiction of counting, from which is implied NOT C.

As any rationalization which ignores the C AND NOT P alternative would not be suitable for SG and the majority, then it becomes held as crank. Which if you infer the reason for the majority not wanting to look stupid at having copied works containing flawed logic, it all makes sense. You're a crank, not because you are wrong, but because they say you're wrong, and they wish to infer there superior number of bodies, and imply a subconscious threat by it. It's all monkey see, monkey do round here.

The classic P is that all files shrink. But why is this so? The possibility that the file stays the same size is never considered. Because analyzing the possible information contents of a fixed size group of bits is so much more difficult than doing a triangular summation of states. So it is ignored by being said to be impossible without proof. This would make them cranks if they were not in the majority, and so maybe they should be considered pandemic cranks.

Cheers Jacko

[Thomas Richter]

How come that so many people here seem to show here a sign of mental
insanity? Just again, of course "it is considered" that the file size
stays the same. Actually, this has been said a couple of times here that
the only compression that compresses all files is the one that just
leaves the file size identical. Just that nobody would call that
compression with the output equally sized than the input. Or at least,
if I had the option to buy or buy not such a "compression program", I
would rather not. I would just use "cp", which does a similarly useful job.

Second, this has nothing to do with all the "factorization" business
here. The question was: "Is modulus reduction a new idea", and the
answer is "no", by pointing to the literature, which was declined by the
OP by simply failing to get the literature. This is pretty much a sign
of "crank-ism".

The question was "does it help for compression", and the answer is
"likely not so", but whether that is or is not true is still to be seen.
It has never been applied to compression, as nobody does forsee how it
could, including the original poster who just posted this into the empty
space without showing either having a clue of how to use it, or a
working concept to demonstrate this, and neither a will to work upon it.
There are two *sensible* reactions one could get from a thinking person:
a) just to say, "ok, seems to be a stupid idea, you're right", or b)
"no, here is a working concept, I'll write up a small article to show
you how it would work, plus a demo program that does this". Instead, the
OP picks c), namely denoting everyone as "Nazi" who states that using
factorization is actually a stupid idea for compression. Which, IMHO, it
really is, but this is an opinion.

What makes it so terribly hard just to get a good book on the
fundamentals and read about them? It is not that any such reading could
potentially destroy your brain... It just implies the risk that you
might actually understand why many ideas are stupid, but doesn't render
any *really* new ideas invalid at all.

[Sebastian]

On 2 Feb., 09:51, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically SG is saying compression (C) is impossible because
> assuming C and assuming certain properties of C (P) being a
> secondary implicit assumption, leads to a contradiction of
> counting, from which is implied NOT C.

Basically, I'm saying that dismissing "classical training" as
unnecessary is a stupid thing to do.

But the issue you actually pointed out here is that sometimes
"secondary implicit assumptions" are made. Why is that? I'll tell you.
This happens if people don't express themselves clearly and stick to
poor/vague wordings of their ideas. In my opinion, it makes little
sense to proceed without asking for clarifications. I'm the last one
to claim that something is impossible. Before I do, I'd like to make
sure that everybody talks about the same "something" and that there is
no miscommunication. Often, I feel like the miscommunication problem
cannot be solved in any other way than by suggesting "classical
training".

> The classic P is that all files shrink. But why is this so? The
> possibility that the file stays the same size is never considered.
> Because analyzing the possible information contents of a fixed
> size group of bits is so much more difficult than doing a
> triangular summation of states. So it is ignored by being said to
> be impossible without proof. This would make them cranks if they
> were not in the majority, and so maybe they should be considered
> pandemic cranks.

I'm glad that you -- unlike Enrst -- are not fixated on a single file
but think more in terms of _sets_ of files. Unfortunately, I could not
follow you here. Care to shed some more light on this? What exactly is
ignored and claimed to be impossible without proof? (See? I'm asking
for clarifications because, otherwise, I would probably add implicit
assumptions about what you could have meant that don't correspond to
what you were trying to talk about.)

Cheers!
SG

[Noob]

Earl_Colby_Pottinger wrote:

> There also is the fact he claims to have a working factoring program,
> but still has not factored one of the unsolved RSA numbers to prove
> that his program works.

which reminds me of one legendary JSH post

JSH wrote:

> Solving the factoring problem has long been the last thing I wanted to
> do. Almost every time I'd buy something online I'd tell myself, why
> mess this up? And ask myself if there wasn't another way.
>
> Now the factoring problem IS solved (again) and watching the reaction
> of the newsgroups and the continued lack of proper reaction by the
> cryptological and mathematical communities, I realize it was,
> unfortunately necessary.
>
> We could still have days to go while the bizarre and stupid denial
> continues. Which begs for explanation.
>
> So why'd you do it? Why did so many of you lie about so many
> mathematical discoveries for so many years, and ignore warnings that
> if necessary I'd solve the factoring problem and now act like I didn't
> when I did (for the second time)?
>
> My analysis: women
>
> My analysis is that for many of you your egos are wrapped up in your
> supposed discoveries and accomplishments as mathematicians, and my
> research takes that away from you, so to keep from looking into the
> eyes of your wives or girlfriends, and seeing the disappointment or
> worse, you just lied, and lied, and have kept lying.
>
> I guess it's evolutionary, but so weird to have $5 trillion U.S. plus
> wiped from the world economy because some dudes didn't want to
> disappoint their women.
>
> Such is life.
>
>
> James Harris

[Noob]

Earl_Colby_Pottinger wrote:

> There also is the fact he claims to have a working factoring program,
> but still has not factored one of the unsolved RSA numbers to prove
> that his program works.

By the way, I, too, have "solved" the factoring problem.
Here is my implementation, in bc.
It uses the fancy modulo operation. A lot.

define foo(n)
{
m = sqrt(n)
for (i = 3; i <= m; i += 2)
if (n%i == 0) { print i, " " ; return trialdiv(n/i) }
return n
}

Banzai!

[George Johnson]

"Ernst" <Ernst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:e468319d-5350-4448...@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hey all..
>
> I'm putting in hours of chair time exploring the nature of
> information and my attention has turned to Modulus.
>
> I see here, through results I wasn't expecting, that modulus is used
> for factoring. I noticed the odd ends in one or zero to the sequences
> and thought hey that is cool!
> Turns out this is the basis of many factoring efforts.
>
> I'm hoping for input and conversation. In return I will moderate my
> output so that it functions in a communal setting.
>
> I love to explore so I was looking at the sequence of reminders when
> they are reused as the modulus.
>
> So N mod M = A then N mod A = B and so on. It ends in 1 or 0. In
> simpler terms it finds a factor or it doesn't of N
>
> Is that the basic concept behind all the Modulus based factoring?
> I see names such as Fermat and Euler plus Wikipedia has a nice page
> on factoring large numbers.
>
> So, May I ask if anyone has heard of factoring with recursive modulus
> as i have stated?
> It must be common knowledge I assume.
>
> This is a clear idea of what I am asking.
>
> I was reading about using value about half the N to start.
>
> N = 14600207906227040223 mod 2^32 = 1233334239
> N mod 1233334239 = 647107860
> 48743583
> 17046876
> 15135939
> 601545, 209958,16905, 8988, 3927, 2898, 777, 441 , 21, 0
>
> So 3*7 are factors of N
>
> When the sequence ends in 1,0 I believe there are no factors.
>
>
> I see that searching for factors through changing the M takes a long
> time.
>
>
> So, I am interested in using the Modulus in creative ways and I
> welcome input. I rarely use Modulus with the "things" I do but it
> looks like I'm moving that way.
>
> There is something more obvious to this. Can anyone see it?
>
> Think Data compression.
>
> Ernst

I can speed your search space reduction a tad.
After checking for factors of 2 & 5, only check for numbers that end in
1 or 3 or 7 or 9.

All primes in Decimal Base 10 (except 2 & 5) end in 1 or 3 or 7 or 9.
That reduces your search space from 10*N to 4*N. A reduction to 40% of
the original search zone.
For 1000 numbers checked for factors, this reduces it to 400+2 (primes 2
& 5). Or 402.
With your choice to start in the middle (using the division by 2
sorting) and work upwards then that reduced your search space to 200+1
(prime 2 being already checked).
For all factors of 2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376 this reduces
the search zone to 253530120045645880299340641076 numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollard%27s_rho_algorithm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

[stan]

Ernst wrote:
> On Feb 1, 4:47 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

> Stan if you pick and choose what you answer you look to me like a
> pacing cat.

That's how usenet works. In fact that's how life works. You choose to
respond or not and how to respond.

> Who are you, what do you do.. You have to get human friend or do
> something else.
> You can't say you are against fighting while you pick a fight.

I really don't have to do anything. As I stated before I'm not picking
a fight and I won't get dragged into one - I have better things to
do. My personal life is in no way relevant, important, or interesting
given the context of compression.

This is off topic and I'll not respond further along this line, but
feel free to have the last word.

[Noob]

s/trialdiv/foo of course.

[stan]

Ernst wrote:
> On Feb 1, 5:24 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:

>> On a side note, I don't think you really understand that many of the
>> top compression people have been known to pop in from time to time and
>> some of the people you are sparring with are at the top of the food
>> chain in the compression world. The knowledge and experience available
>> here is an amazing resource. My grandma always told me to be careful
>> of the bridges you burn; I think that's sound advice.
>>
>> >  You say you have family that is good.. Savor the days because they
>> > grow up so fast.
>>
>> My grandchildren are nearly grown.
>
> So if you had to pick Professional Science or Common person you would
> say you are a "Smarted Okie on the bus?" I'd say so.

I don't agree with your classification scheme; I don't see the world
that way. FWIW I'm a professional Engineer, but that doesn't really
matter. I'm curious about the world around me and the questions,
answers, and ideas come from everywhere. I don't get wrapped up in the
source of an idea, I'm interested if it works.

> So where do you and I stand? Are you just hoping for some action?

I don't know you and I think your ideas are flawed in that they fall
into well known traps. I've seen many people come and complain that
their ideas are not respected. The reality is that not every idea is
created equal.

If I were to hang out with a bunch of welders and I tried to explain
that welding was really just gluing two pieces of metal together, my
idea wouldn't be treated as equally valid as the idea that you
actually result in a single piece of metal instead of two pieces being
held together by some substance. Some ideas are provably wrong.

In welding there are a lot of variables, factors, and operations
involved and the situation is very complex. In math things are
considerably different. You start with a number of things
(eg. numbers) and a finite number of well defined operations that can
be performed and the universe is much more limited. These constraints
or limits allow one to know everything about some things. Unless you
create a new number or add a new operation you can prove results.

I'm not saying math isn't complex, I'm saying we know pretty well
where those dark areas are and we also know where the well lit areas
are too. People who post claims that they have found an exception to
the proven rules must demonstrate their exception and the
Professionals will then take the new information into account and
gladly give credit to the finder, regardless of race, sex, creed,
training or shoe size.

On the other hand people who show up and make claims that they have
found an exception but refuse to talk about it will be called time
wasting cons. People who claims the rules are wrong or incomplete
without some real good reasons why the world should adopt new rules
will be called other names. People who are unaware of the rules and
claim the rules don't apply or don't matter will be treated about the
same as a guy who walks into a welders meeting and claims he can weld
stainless steel with a match and a paperclip.

It's the merit of the ideas not the person that matters.

[stan]

Ernst wrote:

> I am a friend not a peer and so judging and punishing me as a peer is
> wrong.

In my experience ideas and behavior draw responses. Some with thin
skin make it personal and from there it devolves.

> I hope you have good luck with the science community. They can be
> assholes.

I tend to look at generalizations with caution, but it's certainly not
rare to find a geek with impaired social skills. Of course I've met
people who couldn't add, subtract, or count change who weren't exactly
peaches either.

[George Johnson]

You might also want to check your math a bit closer.
14600207906227040223

Factoring large numbers using a method is not really workable if your
output is faulty.

Running it through Wolfram Alpha
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=factor+14600207906227040223

3×7×41×27947×229771×2640739 (6 distinct prime factors)

{1, 3, 7, 21, 41, 123, 287, 861, 27947, 83841, 195629, 229771, 586887,
689313, 1145827, 1608397, 2640739, 3437481, 4825191, 7922217, 8020789,
9420611, 18485173, 24062367, 28261833, 55455519, 65944277, 108270299,
197832831, 324810897, 757892093, 2273676279, 6421410137, 19264230411,
44949870959, 73800732833, 134849612877, 221402198499, 263277815617,
516605129831, 606765240769, 789833446851, 1549815389493, 1820295722307,
1842944709319, 3025830046153, 4247356685383, 5528834127957, 9077490138459,
12742070056149, 21180810323071, 24877374871529, 63542430969213,
74632124614587, 174141624100703, 522424872302109, 16957268183771243,
50871804551313729, 118700877286398701, 356102631859196103,
695247995534620963, 2085743986603862889, 4866735968742346741,
14600207906227040223} (64 divisors)

Just to double check to be safe for your peace of mind
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=601545*209958*16905*8988*3927*2898*777*441*21
601545*209958*16905*8988*3927*2898*777*441*21
= 1571509362471417712012412374354800

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=factor+1571509362471417712012412374354800
2^4×3^11×5^2×7^11×11×17^2×23^2×37×107×337×4999 (37 prime factors, 11
distinct)

Hmm. You will want to recheck your math.

[George Johnson]

Ignore last post. When I copied plaintext from Wolfram Alpha the text in
the email was having the multiplication symbol being 'x' and when I posted
to this message board somehow it was bizarrely posted as 'W'. Very very
weird. Especially since the plaintext from Wolfram Alpha looked correct when
posting through Windows Live Mail.

2^4x3^11x5^2x7^11x11x17^2x23^2x37x107x337x4999
Or 2^4*3^11*5^2*7^11*11*17^2*23^2*37*107*337*4999

NOT
2^4W3^11W5^2W7^11W11W17^2W23^2W37W107W337W4999

Corrected message below.
=======

You might also want to check your math a bit closer.
14600207906227040223

Factoring large numbers using a method is not really workable if your
output is faulty.

Running it through Wolfram Alpha
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=factor+14600207906227040223

3 * 7 * 41 * 27947 * 229771 * 2640739 (6 distinct prime factors)

{1, 3, 7, 21, 41, 123, 287, 861, 27947, 83841, 195629, 229771, 586887,
689313, 1145827, 1608397, 2640739, 3437481, 4825191, 7922217, 8020789,
9420611, 18485173, 24062367, 28261833, 55455519, 65944277, 108270299,
197832831, 324810897, 757892093, 2273676279, 6421410137, 19264230411,
44949870959, 73800732833, 134849612877, 221402198499, 263277815617,
516605129831, 606765240769, 789833446851, 1549815389493, 1820295722307,
1842944709319, 3025830046153, 4247356685383, 5528834127957, 9077490138459,
12742070056149, 21180810323071, 24877374871529, 63542430969213,
74632124614587, 174141624100703, 522424872302109, 16957268183771243,
50871804551313729, 118700877286398701, 356102631859196103,
695247995534620963, 2085743986603862889, 4866735968742346741,
14600207906227040223} (64 divisors)

Just to double check to be safe for your peace of mind
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=601545*209958*16905*8988*3927*2898*777*441*21
601545*209958*16905*8988*3927*2898*777*441*21
= 1571509362471417712012412374354800

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=factor+1571509362471417712012412374354800

(2^4)*(3^11)*(5^2)*(7^11)*(11)*(17^2)*(23^2)*(37)*(107)*(337)*(4999) (37

[George Johnson]

"Ernst" <Ernst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:1f8eae51-143f-481d...@b10g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

> On Feb 1, 4:47 am, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
>> Ernst wrote:
>> > That anyone likes or doesn't like it or me or any class of person in
>> > not relevant.
>>
>> You take things way to personal and that's not helpful in a public forum.
>
>
> I have had enough is what is real here.
>
> I have come here many years and it is always this Thought Nazi game
> shit.
>
> So let it play out.
> You guys made this game and I am playing it my way.
>
> If you guys do not want this outcome you need to code for a better
> codec. That is all. This forum's codec includes offending people and
> name calling plus a lot of elitism.
> So now you say that when the one who is singled out and made fun of
> hets mad that is bad.. Ha-ha.

Me, I'm a annoying jackass in many ways, but the important difference is
that I am a HELPFUL JACKASS (if it amuses me).
It's all well and good to have jackassery fun, but failing to be helpful
when engaging in jackassery also tends to reduce your potential circles of
helpful friends.

As always folks, keep up the hilarity.
This group almost never fails to yield at least one belly-laugh for me
each week.

Math is painful if it is reduced to pure numerical drudgery, however,
giving up completely when meeting a mistake is the absolute last way to ever
gain success or happiness. Be brilliant and cheerful, try not to linger in
dead end functions if you can (unless they are really amusing) and the key
to removing losers from winners is the recognition that the losers always
give up when they fail a few times. The winners always have disturbing
levels of persistence and optimism (which often makes up for them not being
too clever).

The key thing to remember is that painful memories last the longest.
Helpful jackassery puts a little mental pushpin in the brains of folks
to avoid obvious goofs.

You don't have to be smart to be rich, you just have to persist in doing
something that other people are willing to pay good money for again & again.
Now STAYING RICH, well, that requires a brain of greater intellect. It also
requires the knowledge that just because people like what you do for them,
does not mean that THEY ACTUALLY LIKE YOU. So don't dump your emotional
investment too deeply into folks that won't return your compassions because
they are politely exploiting you. By the way, strangers will genuinely like
you very much and often fall in love with you just because you can do
amazing things that they themselves are far too busy or lazy to do, but that
is not a guarantee that everyone will like or love you because of your
skills.

And for God's sake, get out and meet real live people in locations you
know are safe (preferably sometimes unfamiliar), start conversations, learn
to know people. If you piss away your precious years of your lives slaving
away at a computer in a room, you're going to hate yourself when you're old
and weak. You cannot meet nice people if you're just masturbating furiously
by yourself all the time. Find a club and masturbate with strangers. You
won't always meet nice people, but you will meet new people.

[Jim Leonard]

On Feb 1, 11:19 pm, Ernst <Ernst_B...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> saw as a by-product of designing a hash code.  You have to admit that
> if all the intermediate results are strung together as a binary string
> it offers a lot of data to work with and that was the attraction.

Please define "a lot more data to work with" -- In what way? In what
context? How and why do you find stringing factors together
interesting?

> What do you say?  Can you do it?

Not sure what you're asking, but you'd find more people interested in
this line of thinking over at a cryptography group. However, you may
not like the answers you get there.

[jacko]

So a file X bits long can have less than X bits of information due to it being compressible with zip say, AND a file of X bits can have greater than X bits of information due to the fact that it could be the output of say a zip.

So information in a file of X bits IMAX(X) => X => IMIN(X).

[Ernst]

On Feb 2, 12:51 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically SG is saying compression (C) is impossible because assuming C and assuming certain properties of C (P) being a secondary implicit assumption, leads to a contradiction of counting, from which is implied NOT C.
>
> As any rationalization which ignores the C AND NOT P alternative would not be suitable for SG and the majority, then it becomes held as crank. Which if you infer the reason for the majority not wanting to look stupid at having copied works containing flawed logic, it all makes sense. You're a crank, not because you are wrong, but because they say you're wrong, and they wish to infer there superior number of bodies, and imply a subconscious threat by it. It's all monkey see, monkey do round here.
>

> The classic P is that all files shrink. But why is this so? The possibility that the file stays the same size is never considered. Because analysing the possible information contents of a fixed size group of bits is so much more difficult than doing a triangular summation of states. So it is ignored by being said to be impossible without proof. This would make them cranks if they were not in the majority, and so maybe they should be considered pandemic cranks.
>
> Cheers Jacko

I have an alternate I can share but it deserves a proper paper. Since
I am a Friend not a Peer I'm stuck even getting started.

As for Crank or Kook I am a Friend of the sciences not a Peer. Those
titles do not apply to me in case that last bit was aimed at
continuing the fight.

[Ernst]

On Feb 2, 12:51 am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Basically SG is saying compression (C) is impossible because assuming C and assuming certain properties of C (P) being a secondary implicit assumption, leads to a contradiction of counting, from which is implied NOT C.
>
> As any rationalization which ignores the C AND NOT P alternative would not be suitable for SG and the majority, then it becomes held as crank. Which if you infer the reason for the majority not wanting to look stupid at having copied works containing flawed logic, it all makes sense. You're a crank, not because you are wrong, but because they say you're wrong, and they wish to infer there superior number of bodies, and imply a subconscious threat by it. It's all monkey see, monkey do round here.
>

> The classic P is that all files shrink. But why is this so? The possibility that the file stays the same size is never considered. Because analysing the possible information contents of a fixed size group of bits is so much more difficult than doing a triangular summation of states. So it is ignored by being said to be impossible without proof. This would make them cranks if they were not in the majority, and so maybe they should be considered pandemic cranks.
>
> Cheers Jacko