Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 01/22/05
- Next message: Lits O'Hate: "Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method"
- Previous message: ošin: "Re: Basically a sieve method, relation to quantum"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis"
- Next in thread: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:08:17 +0100
jstevh@msn.com writes:
> tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:
>> jst...@msn.com wrote:
>> > > By way of comparison, using Cygwin on my 2.66Ghz XP box, the
>> "factor"
>> > > command correctly factors 137305167623353 in 202 milliseconds.
>> >
>> > I wrote a prototype test program to test out my new factoring
> method.
>>
>> No, you solved factoring remember? Your program wasn't a prototype.
>> It was THE solution.
>>
>
> No you stupid person. The paper is THE solution, or was supposed to
> be, though my research found I'd found a 50% solution, in that it will
> work 50% of the time, which is astounding in and of itself.
I thought that the number of successes decreased with the size of the
factors, no? Looked that way from the data you presented to us.
So why do you call it a 50% solution? Any reason to believe that it
will factor 50% of products of the size used in encryption?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"What does soap kill? Germs or Germans?"
-- Quincy P. Hughes (age 3 1/2) asks for clarification
- Next message: Lits O'Hate: "Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method"
- Previous message: ošin: "Re: Basically a sieve method, relation to quantum"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis"
- Next in thread: tomstdenis_at_gmail.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
