Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:37:12 -0600

On 25 Jan 2005 15:27:24 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:

>Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
>> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>> > And you really can't be as stupid as you're playing here, as
>remember
>> > quantum factoring techniques?
>> > They factored 15, and made headlines.
>>
>> Quantum computing is so technologically challenging
>> that even a "toy" implementation that really works
>> was newsworthy. The same would be true for the first
>> vacuum triode, the first germanium point-contact
>> transistor, the first MASER, etc. All these are
>> "proofs of the concept" and the expectation is that
>> since the idea has been shown to really work, the
>> details can be refined to provide improved technology
>> as time goes on.
>>
>
>Quantum computing at its heart relies on mathematics, right?
>
>I think many of you think it's really about some weird quantum voodoo
>or something profoundly strange about the quantum world that allows it
>to do magic without math being involved.

I doubt that anyone would say there's no math involved. That
doesn't change the fact that there's also weird quantum
voodoo involved.

>I say you are wrong.
>
>If a quantum computing algorithm exists, then I say it has a
>mathematical basis, and just like you can build a mechanical computer
>with gears and other mechanical stuff, you can also work out how it
>would work mathematically.
>
>So I say there is a mathematical way to check a tremendous number of
>possible solutions simultaneously.

You can say what you want - it would be a big surprise if what you
said about quantum computing was less ridiculous than the things
you say about everything else.

>It's not a major leap.
>
>Now I say it can be done, and I've proven it can be done, as that's how
>my program works,

Your program works by checking a tremendous number of possible
solutions _simultaneously_?

Check back when you sober up.

>and it does a lot better than factor 15.

Yes, it does. Not a big deal - just looping through all the
numbers between 2 and n-1, checking for a divisor, also
does a lot better than just factor 15.

>So, it's like I am arguing with people who have a mechanical gizmo that
>they got all excited about that can at best, with a lot of effort,
>manage to factor 15, and I'm demonstrating the mathematical ideas
>necessary for quantum to even work, abstracted out, where I have a
>working program that can factor much bigger numbers, and you give me
>grief.
>
>I think you're just too dumb to see the relationship, and act like it's
>my problem.

Too dumb to see the relationship between your algorithm and
quantum computing. This is really funny, even for you.

>> The problem with all the factoring methods you have
>> so far posted is that they don't work even in "toy"
>> implementations. There is always some crucial gap
>
>That's a lie.
>
>The program does factor. It just doesn't factor every number you try
>to factor with it, and I've been working out why, theoretically.
>
>Now notice, I've explained how my work is important--as it involves
>mathematically checking infinite sets, like a quantum computer
>anyway--and I have an implementation that does far better than factor
>15, though I admit it doesn't factor every number you run through it.
>
>You on the other hand are ignoring the spectacular features of my work,
>and are caught in a rather dramatic lie where you claim it does not
>work, when the truth is it works sometimes, but not always.
>
>I think Usenet posters are not up to a real intellectual challenge, and
>when given something that your brains can't manage, you lie about it.
>
>That explains you, but I think it's sad.
>
>If you can't understand my work, then you can just quiet down, rather
>than trying to dismiss what you don't understand.
>
>It's like I have the heart of the mathematics necessary for a quantum
>computing device to work, abstracted out, so that you don't need a
>mechanical device--quantum circuits--but can just use a regular
>computer.
>
>I have proven that my program checks through an infinite set, even with
>the trivial calculations done so far, which you people so casually
>dismiss because you're dumb.
>
>I'm light years ahead of you, and you think I'm behind you.
>James Harris

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How seriously do you take mathematics?
    ... based on the possibilities of quantum computing. ... which we can prove we cannot prove in mathematics. ... are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. ... Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
    ... >> Quantum computing is so technologically challenging ... >> transistor, the first MASER, etc. ... >Quantum computing at its heart relies on mathematics, ... >It's like I have the heart of the mathematics necessary for a quantum ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Quantum computer using using artificial atoms.
    ... >> Yeah, I know, it's quantum, and all kind of interesting physics ... >> mechanical devices when you talk about quantum computing. ... >The mathematics of quantum computing is different from the mathematics ... The set of algorithms that run in polynomial ...
    (sci.crypt)