Re: Surrogate factoring, update on research
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 01/18/05
- Next message: David Kastrup: "Re: JSH: Math society against amateurs"
- Previous message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Maple"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, update on research"
- Next in thread: Lits O'Hate: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update on research"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:24:33 -0600
On 17 Jan 2005 18:05:38 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>For a while now I've been doing research on ways to factor large
>numbers by instead factoring some surrogate number.
>
>I wanted to update on the research and talk about where it is headed.
>
>So far I've been able to validate the formulas in my paper, but have
>found cases where I iterated through all the factors for a surrogate
>but didn't factor the target.
>
>However, those are more rare than the cases where it works, at least
>for the small numbers I'm testing it with, as I haven't gone over 60
>bit numbers as of yet.
Wow. A factoring algorithm that _seems_ to work _most_ of the
time on _small_ numbers! That's an amazing breakthrough.
>[...]
>
>So far I have been unable to figure out when this method works, or when
>it doesn't, while my paper basically says it does work, which is from
>my initial work, and I still don't see any place to refute the paper,
>except that I have actually looped through factorizations and not found
>solutions!
In other words you don't understand your own "work". There was
really no reason to explain this...
>But my program may be flawed.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sufactor/
>
>If I were certain this worked then I wouldn't be talking about it, as
>I'd just go ahead and take the RSA challenge, but until I can get a
>better handle on it, I'm really just doing basic research on a new
>idea.
>
>I figure things out by talking about them...not hiding out fearful that
>someone will steal my ideas or make fun of me...so I'm putting what I
>have out there.
>
>At least now if you're curious you can just run the Java program with
>little effort.
>
>Oh yeah, to run it you put purple.jar in your classpath, and use
>something like
>
>java org.jstevh.purple.Factor 14329111
>
>which I think that version will factor, as it seems to factor dinky
>numbers rather well and then starts quitting with bigger ones, though
>it will factor some of them.
>
>Right now it's a lot of theory, but some of you may just like to play.
>
>Those of you who don't can do yourselves a favor by just going away.
>
>I get so tired of those people who feel a need to attack other people
>just because, when Usenet makes it easy to ignore people.
>
>If you're not interested, don't care, feel all of this is a waste of
>time, think I'm just some nut, or anything else like the above, show
>you have an ounce of commonsense and just wander off.
>
>You do NOT have an obligation to make some nasty reply.
>
>You do NOT have to say something mean.
>
>You do NOT have to say anything at all in reply, as for once a post of
>mine can just go out there, and not be some target for people who just
>hate, and wish to show the world that they can be vicious.
Nope, that's never going to happen. At least it's never going to
happen as long as all your posts are so utterly stupid. I mean
the bit above about how you _think_ that that specific example
will work just takes the cake - you can't even verify before
posting that it actually does work on that one number?
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: David Kastrup: "Re: JSH: Math society against amateurs"
- Previous message: bryant_j_j_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Maple"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, update on research"
- Next in thread: Lits O'Hate: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update on research"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
