Silly Factoring Theorems
- From: "rich burge" <r3769@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Apr 2005 14:24:51 -0700
jst...@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> So your position is that only practicality matters.
>
> In this case that position is that only if there is a real world use
> for the SFT is it valuable.
>
Silly factoring theorems (sft's) are a dime a dozen. For example,
suppose n=p*q is given where p and q are unknown primes. Further,
suppose p is k digits long. Then one example of a sft is the
following:
Thm: There exists a natural number e such that the leading k digits of
n^e are equal to (the k digits of) p.
Sft's are many, but this one is somewhat curious, simple to prove(?),
and decidedly silly. Thus it meets and exceeds all the requirements of
a good sft. However, if one was able to prove, say, that e<P(k), for
some polynomial P, then this particular sft would be a *lot* more
interesting, perhaps even useful. Utility is decidedly NOT a
requirement to be a sft, but it is, I suppose, possible some sft is
useful.
So how could one go about proving e<P(k)? One approach is to first
find some evidence that it is true: i.e. perform some experiments!
This is where "practicality matters". Is it wise to start
experimenting with one of the RSA challenge numbers? No, that's dumb,
and those who would offer such advise for this or any other sft are
themselves being silly (or cruel).
The professional mathematician would probably quickly recognize that no
such P could exist and thus avoid the need for such amateurish
experimentation, but that is another matter.
Rich
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Silly Factoring Theorems
- From: Mark Atherton
- Re: Silly Factoring Theorems
- Next by Date: Re: Question about sets of functions
- Next by thread: Re: Silly Factoring Theorems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|