Re: JSH: Nearly done
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 01/27/05
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Previous message: poopdeville_at_gmail.com: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Next in thread: litsohate_at_hotmail.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:28:24 -0600
On 26 Jan 2005 16:13:05 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>[...]
>
>My prototype program already does that to a certain extent, so you
>could put in some huge number into it, but it'd probably take it a few
>days to process through and more than likely, it wouldn't factor.
>
>But it would process through in a few days, even with an RSA challenge
>number.
>
>That's how fast it is.
Wow. You really have no idea how ridiculous this sounds - you're
incredibly proud of a program that will _not_ solve a certain
problem, but fails to solve it incredibly fast?
Hint: It's very easy to write a program that will fail to factor
a large number much faster than your program fails to do so.
>> 2. What's the basis for your statement that the whole process will
>execute
>> in polynomial time?
>>
>
>I'm focusing on building a full method that relies only on my work, so
>it has to call itself recursively to factor, and such a method can
>potentially chew through even an RSA challenge type number in minutes.
>
>Then it's just a matter of iterating through the various combinations,
>which I've figured out are at about 150 million for the number
>generated by the first 1000 primes.
>
>Potentially this method can factor an RSA challenge sized number in
>seconds.
We'll believe that when we see it.
>I call that polynomial time.
Why? It's not what everyone else calls polynomial time.
(Hint: You've just demonstrated that the answer to the question
about the basis for your claim about polynomial time is
"none whatever, just a guess. Actually I don't really know
quite what 'polynomial time' even means. But I'm pretty
sure my program does it, I think maybe I hope. QED.")
>Now, when I talk about development, I'm talking about using the method
>fully, so that it acts recursively.
>
>NOW you can use some other method to factor T, like elliptic curve, and
>then use that factorization, as if you can get rational x's, then you
>will have about a 50% probability per.
>
>I call that an inelegant solution and rely on my own algorithm for my
>research.
>
>However, if rational x's can be consistently found, then the
>mathematics says that the method will more than likely factor a number
>without regard to size as long as you have T factored, as only a few
>rational x's are needed with the 50% success rate per.
>
>Now, all the math at the lower level has been worked out, while I
>haven't yet proven conclusively that you can get rational x's at will,
Huh? Now you're confusing me again - you've said many times
that you had all the math worked out, the people who were saying
you didn't were just lying for various reasons, etc. Turns out
you don't have it all worked out?
You know if this sort of thing continues eventually it will
reach a point where nobody believes anything you say. Giggle.
>and even for very large numbers.
>
>Maybe for really big numbers rational x's become difficult to find.
>
>But at this point, I don't see a mathematical reason why they should.
>
>I think it would be quite useful if one of you could settle the
>question.
>
>
>James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Previous message: poopdeville_at_gmail.com: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Next in thread: litsohate_at_hotmail.com: "Re: JSH: Nearly done"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
