Re: Surrogate factoring, random is better?
From: David Kastrup (dak_at_gnu.org)
Date: 02/18/05
- Next message: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: does sqrt(2) exist in CM?"
- Previous message: ošin: "Re: The condom conundrum"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, random is better?"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, random is better?"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, random is better?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:02:52 +0100
jstevh@msn.com writes:
> I keeps seeing posters claiming that my surrogate factoring method is
> worse than even chance or at best only as good as a chance method for
> factoring.
>
> There are several problems with their assertion.
>
> That is, I suggest that they are lying.
That's nothing new.
> Here's why.
[Nonsense snipped]
> Well, suddenly you have *two* more variables, in a system that up
> until now has been fully constrained, as you had three unknowns with
> two equations, where the final constraint is a rationality of square
> roots constraint.
>
> So guess what?
>
> If posters claiming my method doesn't work are right, then m is
> basically a random number.
No. Your method does not work because choosing m correctly is not
shown to be any easier than factoring the original number.
[More nonsense snipped]
> Now then, I would be curious if any poster might reply explaining how
> there is some other possibility than I mentioned:
>
> 1. A perfect random number generator
>
> 2. A method that must work in some deterministic fashion.
The method works in a deterministic fashion: you need to find
particular values of m, and you give no relations or mechanisms for
doing so that would not require more work than factoring by ggt with
random numbers.
I mean, that is the same principal problem with public key
cryptography: obviously, there is a _deterministic_ relation between
the public and the secret key. And it is easy to check that two keys
belong to one key pair. But given only one key, the other is darn
hard to find...
And that's the same here: not given the factors of the original
number, your m is still darn hard to find.
-- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Next message: tchow_at_lsa.umich.edu: "Re: does sqrt(2) exist in CM?"
- Previous message: ošin: "Re: The condom conundrum"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Surrogate factoring, random is better?"
- Next in thread: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, random is better?"
- Reply: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Surrogate factoring, random is better?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
