Re: riemann hypothesis needed to factor numbers?
- From: tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:23:28 EDT
Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
I think that such algorithms would tend to be fastin practice for the
same reason that the nontrivial zeros of the zetafunction are on the
critical line "in practice". A proof of RH wouldonly be useful for
proving an asymptotic efficiency bound.
As an amusing aside, for any problem, it's easy to
write an algorithm which
solves it in polynomial time if and only if a
polynomial-time algorithm for
that problem exists. You simply enumerate all
algorithms and run them in
parallel, running (say) step #s of algorithm #a in
pass s+a. If algorithm #A
(one-based) solves the problem in P(n) steps, this
algorithm will solve it
in at most 1/2 (A + P(n)) (A + P(n) - 1) steps, which
is another polynomial
in n. So if there are any polynomial-time factoring
algorithms, then we
already know one. Of course, A is likely to be pretty
large. Dang those
constant factors.
-- Ben
im sorry but thats BS !
if that were true
we could easily check P = NP since in your assumption testing P is easy (because finite possibilities (also incorrect btw ) )
tommy1729
.
- References:
- Re: riemann hypothesis needed to factor numbers?
- From: Ben Rudiak-Gould
- Re: riemann hypothesis needed to factor numbers?
- Prev by Date: Re: Please take 5-10 minutes to help me on my thesis questionnaire and get the report
- Next by Date: Re: Simple Proof of the Four Color Theorem
- Previous by thread: Re: riemann hypothesis needed to factor numbers?
- Next by thread: Re: riemann hypothesis needed to factor numbers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|