Re: Factoring problem, solved

From: Gregory G Rose (ggr_at_qualcomm.com)
Date: 01/22/05 

Date: 22 Jan 2005 09:39:36 -0800

In article <1106413314.802408.288300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 <jstevh@msn.com> wrote:
>More than likely the correct number is greater than 90% factoring, and
>the heavy recursion of my program hides how well the algorithm works.

A couple of days ago you were asserting that the
50% number came from Quadratic Residues, and that
you'd proved it. Well, either you're wrong now, or
your proof was wrong then. We can't tell, because
of course all you wrote then was gibberish.

>> I have just shown you in a few lines how to factor an arbitrary
>> non-zero positive integer M in polynomial time.

I still don't get how this is polynomial time,
when it involves recursing to factor some other
number using algorithms that are subexponential,
even if they do manage to factor this "easier"
number. There's still at least one subexponential
step involved, so it can't be polynomial.

>There are mathematical reasons as to when it will or will not work,
>which I'm working on figuring out.

It's all Quadratic Residues.

Greg. 

-- 
Greg Rose
232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F  E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au