Re: JSH: Contradictory behavior, issue of math fraud

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:25:47 -0000, JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 3, 1:42 am, rossum <rossu...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:19:32 -0700, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But if the idea turns out to be a brilliant one which means factoring
is not a hard problem after all, then how can mathematicians who not
only couldn't figure it out, but who ignored it when presented with it
be considered to be true experts in the field?

In its current version surrogate factoring is too slow to be
considered "brilliant". Only when you have speeded it up sufficiently

I asked, what if?
Strictly, you said "But if ...". All I am pointing out that the "if"
is still in the future, you are not there yet.


can it be considered brilliant. Slow factoring methods are a
dime-a-dozen. The difficult part is finding a *fast* factoring
method, that is a polynomial time rather than an exponential time
method. So far your method seems to be exponential time, or do you
have a proof that it is polynomial time?


If practicality is all that matters then acknowledge that "pure math"
is a bogus concept.
No, it is just that I am more focused on computing than on Pure Maths,
so I tend towards the applied end of the spectrum. Hence my
preference for actually coding something up and seeing what emerges.
I leave the theory to other people.


In the real world, only math that is practical matters, which is a
major point I'm making.
Both pure and applied have their places. I prefer applied, but
today's pure is often tomorrow's applied.


Let's say that down the line someone proves that surrogate factoring
not only is polynomial time, but that it blows away all other
factoring approaches known, what does that say about the current math
community's expertise in this area?
Surogate factoring is your baby, I suggest that *you* try proving that
it is either exponential or polynomial time. If it turns out to be
polynomial time then you are onto a winner. If it is exponential then
that is an indication that this idea will probably not work out and
you should look for a different approach.

If you want people to notice surrogate factoring then either factoring
an RSA number or a proof that it works in polynomial time would be
effective. As others have pointed out, all you have so far is "if
....". Anyone can have as many if's as they want. To be taken
seriously you need to actually produce something from your surrogate
factoring idea. If you don't want to factor an RSA number then a
proof that surrogate factoring runs in polynomial time would do as
well. A new polynomial time factoring method would be big news.


Note, I'm talking a hypothetical.

The question is, what if it turns out to be this incredibly powerful
factoring technique that most of the math community ignored and people
like you talked down?

How expert then could you really be?
I do not claim to be an expert. I merely crunch numbers for amusement
in my spare time. I last did serious maths during my BSc degree back
in the 1970s. My work since then has mostly been in computing, hence
my interest in the computational utility of your idea.

rossum

[snip]



James Harris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?
    ... polynomial time. ... a new factoring algorithm. ... Greg Rose ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: JSH: Nearly done
    ... my response to your "polynomial time" below.) ... algorithms really are, so I'll tell you: For a factoring algorithm to ... it doesn't hurt to use recursion in a "proof of concept" ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ultimate check, new way to factor or not?
    ... > polynomial time. ... Now, factoring is in general hard, with *certain* types of numbers, ... the mathematics or what's possible, but only in trying to dismiss my ... while certain key features of my discovery make it very exciting, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
    ... > I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk ... > out the math but it won't matter. ... positive integer M in polynomial time." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Fasincating behavior, reaction to my work
    ... > I have my own research, I'm factoring numbers with it, and I can talk ... > out the math but it won't matter. ... positive integer M in polynomial time." ...
    (sci.crypt)