Re: Surrogate factoring now is new
C. Bond
> I'm going to break out of critique mode now
Who knew? (Raise your hands, or if you believe in telekinesis, raise my
hand.)
> to do a post which I guess
> can be seen as promotion, but it's also about my confusion and concern,
> as well as about the reality of the current situation versus where
> things were before.
What changed? How is the "current situation" different from "where things
were before"?[snip]
> I call it a theorem as that's what it is, with a proof, and therefore,
> no reason for doubt as to correctness, though there still is the big
> question of efficacy.
>
> I am too afraid to test it,
If there is "no reason for doubt as to correctness", why are you afraid?
[snip more JSH nonsense]
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and
the obvious.
--
Democracy: The triumph of popularity over principle.
--
http://www.crbond.com
flip
news:1112313705.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> So it's a new mathematical animal.
>
> Nothing like it has ever been seen before--ever.
>
> James Harris
Do you realize how insane statement s like this make you?
You are so delusional with your goals of grandeur that you couldn't tell
tell the difference between a pile of dung and a theorem.
The top number theorist in the world has left the building and is in a fit
of lunacy again!
Dude, go get some help!
apa...@gmail.com
C. Bond wrote:
> jst...@msn.com wrote:
>
> > I'm going to break out of critique mode now
>
> Who knew? (Raise your hands, or if you believe in telekinesis, raise
my
> hand.)
>
> > to do a post which I guess
> > can be seen as promotion, but it's also about my confusion and
concern,
> > as well as about the reality of the current situation versus where
> > things were before.
>
> What changed? How is the "current situation" different from "where
things
> were before"?[snip]
>
> > I call it a theorem as that's what it is, with a proof, and
therefore,
> > no reason for doubt as to correctness, though there still is the
big
> > question of efficacy.
> >
> > I am too afraid to test it,
>
> If there is "no reason for doubt as to correctness", why are you
afraid?
He is too afraid it will work and the world as we know it will be
smashed to smithereens by The Hammer.
regards.
Joe Peschel
news:1112313705.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> So it's a new mathematical animal.
>
> Nothing like it has ever been seen before--ever.
>
Didn't Bob Silverman recently explain that the technique wasn't new?
The continued fraction algorithm, QS, and NFS
all work via "surrogate factoring".[sic]
Instead of factoring N directly, we factor
(or attempt to factor) MANY smaller
numbers that are algebraically related to N.
Most of these numbers are not successfully
factored. These get thrown away. We then take those
that ARE successfully factored and combine them
using large scale linear algebra to then factor
N.
J
--
__________________________________________
When will Bush be tried for war crimes?
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They
never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our
people, and neither do we." --G. W. B.
Joe Peschel
D.O.E. SysWorks
http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm
__________________________________________
oğin
> Nothing like it has ever been seen before--ever.
Do you really know the history of mathematics that well to make such a
claim? Have you looked at all the math publications made over the last three
hundred years to verify this claim?
Felix Rawlings
> Nothing like it has ever been seen before--ever.
Come, come, some modesty would be becoming here: you might not be able to
understand it but, with so many people in the world, chances are that
somebody out there is even more stupid than you. Even your
inveterate stupidity is not original.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> It is a *direct* link between a pair of factors of Tj^2 and a
> factor--or actually it gives you a pair of factors as well but I
> just show one--of M^2.
You're using the term "factor" here, whereas your alleged theorem
seems to be about "rational factors".
[...]
> I am too afraid to test it, so I think about it, and try to find
> some reason why it would prefer trivial factors of M to give, and so
> far I haven't thought of any, but that doesn't mean there aren't
> any.
Here's another way to get factors: choose an integer n at random, and
look at gcd(n,M). Some of the time that'll give the trivial factors 1
or M. My guess is that if you can think of a reason why it very often
produces trivial factors, then that same reason will apply to your
method.
> If there are none, then that rational factor of M^2, may have a
> numerator that gives a non-trivial factor about 50% of the time for
> any given *pair* of factors of Tj^2, and in practice, you have tens
> of thousands of such pairs for a large M, which would mean it would
> factor with near certainty.
Until you've got some reason to believe that 50% is correct (just to
take a random example, you might actually try the algorithm and see if
it seems to be about 50%), there's no point in following that thought.
[...]
C. Bond
[snip]
> Nothing like it has ever been seen before--ever.
That's an outrageous and unprovable statement. The method for 'surrogate
factoring' you describe may have been discovered countless times, but
abandoned as worthless. Since you cannot know if anyone has previously
investigated the method, you have no standing to make such a claim -- other
than being an arrogant blowhard.