Re: JSH: What if I succeed?

On Aug 27, 2:41 am, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For years I've been talking about using the factoring problem to force
acceptance of my other mathematical research as I figured that if I
demonstrate my problem solving ability with a practical math problem
away from "pure math" then I can get people to pay attention to my
other decried research.

My take on responses from this newsgroup at least has been a
contemptuous dismissal of any possibility of my success.


There's a fairly strong chance you won't succeed, yes. But that's no
reason why you shouldn't try. You don't seem to be willing to put much
effort into it, however. Why don't you review the literature and see
what other approaches people have tried?

But what if I succeed?


Well, that'll be great. We'll have an interesting new mathematical
result, and we'll have to use some other form of public key
cryptography.

The scary part to me is not the world's markets but the possibility
that the academic math world IS as dumb as I've feared as if I just
trot out a solution that shows that factoring is a trivially easy
problem, and do it with ideas I've talked out over a year, how can it
be smart?


I'm not sure I understand your concern here. If you succeed you should
be able to produce irrefutable evidence that you've succeeded. It
won't matter whether the mathematical community is smart or dumb
(though you've got no reason to think it's dumb). People will announce
that the RSA cryptosystem is no longer secure, and people will start
using other forms of cryptography.

Especially if it has spent the last five years ignoring my proof of
FLT and my prime counting function along with other research?


There's a very good reason for that.

And, um, can I ethically present a stunningly simple proof of how to
make my latest "surrogate factoring" approach work at a time like this
when the world's financial markets are already on edge?


It's very simple. You make a public announcement that the RSA
cryptosystem is no longer secure and demonstrate that you can crack
it. People thank you for the information and make arrangements to use
other forms of cryptography. After the transition period is over, you
publish the algorithm. No ethical problem involved.

But where can I go with the research?

I've already contacted the NSA in the past when I was wrong, and I've
bugged cryptology people over the years, so how do I go to anyone now?


If you succeed, you will be able to write code that can efficiently
factor large numbers and it will be easy for people to verify that
this is the case. Set up the code on a secure server and let people
check that it works, without revealing the actual code until they have
had time to adjust to the situation.

But more importantly, how can it be so trivial?


Well, it would certainly be very strange if the problem were as easy
as you're hoping it is. Is there the tiniest chance you're mistaken
about that?

How could R, S and A present something so pathetically easy to solve
to the world as a security system, and manage to convince people?


Yes, something funny's definitely going on. Could it be we're making
any questionable assumptions here? I wonder what they are. Beats me.

Should I hide math for the good of financial markets to protect a math
culture that seems to be stupid on a scale hard to comprehend about
even the most basic mathematics?


No. If you can write code that can factor numbers efficiently you
should announce the fact.

Or let fly? I think I have no choice but to simply present the
research and let the chips fall where they may because the situation
is so unprecedented that there is no rulebook.


So, let me get this straight here: is there something you've achieved
that you haven't already presented in a public forum? When you've
actually got a new "achievement" that you haven't announced yet, then
you can start worrying about the ethical dilemma of what to do. I
wouldn't have thought it would be too hard to release the information
without causing anyone too much inconvenience.

There simply is no right answer.

James Harris


.

Relevant Pages