Re: Surrogate factoring demonstrated

jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 02/26/05 

Date: 25 Feb 2005 16:16:01 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > I think it'd help to show an actual example of surrogate factoring,
> > which of course is a picked example, of a case where it works.
> >
>
> I'm still working on the algorithm and seeing what it will factor.
>
> Here's one I just did.
>
> M = 116565983987934769
>
> T = 1331674354105829165393067963530771325
>
> T^6 factored is
>
> ( 3^18 )( 5^12 )( 89^6 )( 479^6 )( 137573^6 )( 214213^6 )(
> 146655731^6) (10707563851^6 )
>
> Iterations: 555547
>
> Max is 8 times that or 4,444,376
>
> Time/iteration: <deleted>
> Number factored.
> Initial Factorization:
> f_1=247816937
> f_2=470371337
> Now checking its factors...
> moving up a level
>
> Success!
> Factors:
> ( 247816937 )( 470371337 )
> Product: 116565983987934769
>
> In coming is 116565983987934769
> Processing time: <deleted>
> Number of digits: 18
> bitLength=57
>
> I'm still working on my idea about blocking primes, so I'm forcing in
a
> factor of 15 into T.
>
> I'm trying to find a number the current algorithm does NOT factor.

Well, found it. Sigh. I'll tell you the trouble with ideas, there's
little worse than coming up with something new.

So I have this idea that I think is worth checking into, which is to
use some other number to factor a target, and I can get some
tantalizing results but I can't nail it all down, so I have to go into
long-term research mode.

Some posters seem to think it's worth their time to try to convince you
one way or the other about this method, but they don't know what I
know.

It doesn't matter.

New ideas don't get picked up rapidly.

People don't steal great ideas.

They run away from them.

I made a post about how surrogate factoring is a concept--you use one
number to factor another--but it won't stop posters from telling you it
can't work, even though it's a concept, so how can you say it can't
work.

But again, it doesn't matter. They're wasting their time, as people
don't latch onto new ideas rapidly. You don't get cheered. You don't
have people congratulating you on your creativity.

You get called a crackpot.

Years pass, maybe even decades, and then you're hailed as brilliant,
often after you're dead.

That's what being a discoverer is today, as it has been for some time.

I think it has to be that way with humanity.

Like, it's built into the genes.

No one breaks those rules, and people you think did, history will show
were not who *you* thought they were, as much of what people think they
know, is what they're told, and you know what?

People can *say* just about anything.

James Harris

Relevant Pages

  • JSH: Extraodinary to supposedly ordinary
    ... Basically no matter what I discover, ... Now, supposedly, surrogate factoring is just some random, or, ... The reality is that I show extraordinary mathematics, and posters work ...
    (sci.math)
  • JSH: Extraodinary to supposedly ordinary
    ... Basically no matter what I discover, ... Now, supposedly, surrogate factoring is just some random, or, ... The reality is that I show extraordinary mathematics, and posters work ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Proper evaluation of surrogate factoring
    ... Surrogate factoring is just kind of a wild idea that means you have to ... I am being very serious here, modern mathematicians lie a lot. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: SF: Areas of confusion, infinity
    ... > notably the set of rationals. ... choosing any integer is the same as the probability of any other ... That's what make the factoring problem interesting, i.e., not ... > is naive with the surrogate factoring theorem. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: What surrogate factoring theory now says
    ... Surrogate factoring theory says that you can turn factoring a hard ... once the engineering is figured out that is achievable. ... Mainly I just added one more congruence to the difference of squares. ...
    (sci.crypt)