Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring
From: David Eather (eather_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 03/05/05
- Next message: Dave Seaman: "Re: On the cardinal of the Cantor set"
- Previous message: Dave Seaman: "Re: finding a bijection from [0,1]^2 to [0,1]"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Reply: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:19:45 +1000
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>>> fiziwig wrote:
>>>> Could you take a reasonably small number, say 8 or 10
>>>> digits, and DEMONSTRATE, step by step how your method would be
>>>> applied to factoring that number. Can I see how you use it to
>>>> factor an easy number like 50,985,511 for example?
>>
>>> Why? It'd make as much sense to factor an easy number like 15.
>>>
>>> I'm more of a theoretical guy. I want to know why.
>>
>> So give a clear explanation of "how".
>
> I *have* posted algorithms.
>
> Even this thread contains an algorithm which should work perfectly.
>
> I'm just not interested in going through the effort of demonstrating
> the algorithm with a test number, especially when other posters have
> posted the algorithms in programmatic form, as has happened.
>
> I'm the theory guy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I'm the theory guy? What sort of cop out is that? If you want to be
"creative" then remember at the end of the process you have to
*create* something - not just inconsistent gibberish but a solid
result. % year old are "creative" - unfortunately all their space
suits fail to work - perhaps you can aim a little higher and produce
something real / testable
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQim/8ZS9Fk5okqe7EQIuPACgtia2cXVmOVDMvuwyzpGBuDAGhWsAn1zX
N3k3ybTOwa2Zwvh+tqX7ByG3
=mnWr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Other people are the experimental people.
>
> It's how physics works, and I'm showing how it can be done with
> mathematics.
>
> If you push me on details I get annoyed, as I'm the theory guy.
>
> I'm the theoretical amateur mathematician.
>
>>
>>> So I give the mathematical basis for various ideas, and if you're
>>> interested enough, you can play with it and test it out.
>>
>> The "basis" you've given so far isn't enough to really figure out
>> what it is you mean.
>>
>
> I know it is for some people, and that's important to me as more than
> anything else I want to get to the bottom of this and understand it.
>
> To me people who can figure out what I'm doing are more valuable than
> people who need extreme detail, as those people are more likely to be
> able to test or critique.
>
> More than anything else I need people who are capable of pointing out
> mistakes in my reasoning, or testing out the ideas themselves.
>
> Later I can address people who need more help, once the basic research
> is done, and I'd fully intend to do that as I see it as an important
> point.
>
> One of my BIG beefs with Wiles is that he disdained explaining his
> work to a general audience claiming it was just beyond them.
>
>>> I don't like specific factorization requests though I have tried
>>> some at times, as they don't serve a purpose.
>>
>> Okay, so you pick the number. Just show us, in *complete* detail.
>>
>
> I explained above on that point.
>
> Yes, I can do it, and later I might, but for now, I need people who
> can do it for themselves who feel motivated to do so, as hopefully
> then, they may do more.
>
>>> If I factor the number, people will just put up bigger numbers, and
>>> if I could factor RSA Challenge numbers I wouldn't be talking about
>>> it on Usenet, but posters would keep putting up numbers until that
>>> point and beyond, as that's how Usenet is.
>>
>> I think you misunderstood fiziwig. I think he's just asking for a
>> demonstration. That's something I would like to see, too.
>>
>> You get a lot of hostile, rhetorical questions, and you deserve that.
>> But I read this as a genuine request.
>>
>> Do you really think you've explained "surrogate factoring" in enough
>> detail for someone else to implement it? I don't think you have.
>
> People have implemented it.
>
> Given that the perfect algorithm is now out, I'm sure many more people
> have implemented it, and that number will grow rapidly, which may be
> unfortunate.
>
> I would like to address a more general audience later, but for now I
> need people with expertise.
>
> People who can find holes in my reasoning or test out the ideas.
>
> I need experimental mathematicians.
>
>
> James Harris
- Next message: Dave Seaman: "Re: On the cardinal of the Cantor set"
- Previous message: Dave Seaman: "Re: finding a bijection from [0,1]^2 to [0,1]"
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Next in thread: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Reply: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Simple answer, surrogate factoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
