Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation
From: Randy Poe (poespam-trap_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: Herman Rubin: "Re: Convergent?"
- Previous message: Tony: "Re: Intersection of sigma-algebras question"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Jan 2005 10:39:50 -0800
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> I've checked the theory, and it's not wrong.
Which probably means you checked the algebra, but
not the underlying assumptions.
I think we've adequately established you are more
than competent at elementary algebra (as opposed to
the abstract kind, which you deny even exists).
But you haven't ever explained why there must always
be a solution to your surrogate factoring problem. I
think the disappointing results may be illustrating this
part of the theory that you haven't checked: Does a
solution always exist?
If we assume your programming is competent, then the
answer would appear to be "no".
- Randy
P.S. Note that this doesn't automatically discount
the possibility that one or more RSA challenge numbers
may be factorable by this method. But it probably
indicates that exhaustive search is too slow a method
and you need more theory behind better ways to choose
potentially good surrogates.
- Next message: Herman Rubin: "Re: Convergent?"
- Previous message: Tony: "Re: Intersection of sigma-algebras question"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Next in thread: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Reply: David Kastrup: "Re: Surrogate factoring, theory versus implementation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
