JSH: Let's recrap
- From: "Amebias" <spamless@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:22:44 -0500
I will sacrifice your actual lives against the needs of the
future, against the children yet to be born.
As far as I'm concerned if you make the wrong choice, you simply
killed yourselves.
I'm the "crackpot" with yet another idea claiming it's important.
And I have no choice but to sacrifice the few against the needs of the
many.
They sure don't trust me.
Now it is clear that what I call surrogate factoring IS a new way to
factor and is as fundamental in mathematics as methods related to
congruence of squares, and there is no way to show it is just trivial,
meaning that like methods before it, there is the possibility of a
growing body of research that continually improves it.
Surrogate factoring preferentially yanks out small prime factors. And
it doesn't seem to care much how big the number is when it does that
yanking.
The mathematics is very fundamental as I've only added k = 2x mod T,
to x^2 = y^2 mod T, so you have a basis in very rudimentary equations,
and now after a year I am certain that it cannot be shown to be
trivial.
So it's about time, effort and the natural maturation of an idea.
Previous factoring methods took hundreds of years to reach maturity,
but that was without modern computing technology, modern mathematical
technique, modern problem solving technique, and trillions of dollars
flowing behind an encryption standard that could be made obsolete
motivating highly intelligent people to work very hard.
Past history with my prior research indicates that modern
mathematicians have taken an absolute position of holding against my
research in denial--no matter what.
Even the destruction of a modern electronic mathematical journal had
little if any impact, as you can see by searching on "SWJPAM".
Like with my first attempts at factoring algorithms back about 5 years
ago, I was just working on extensions of ideas used by Fermat.
Later I had the concept of surrogate factoring as an idea from a
question: could you factor one number using another?
And method after method after method failed as I'd figure out or
others would figure out that it was something trivial where the
underlying relations were often about random or some kind of sieving
that would not be earth-shattering in terms of impact on the problem.
So the first year of the life of the latest surrogate factoring
research where after over 3 years of searching I realized I only
needed to add one variable k, where k = 2x mod T, where T is the
target to factor, was really about finding some way to trivialize the
research.
And it survived that year plus.
But factoring research has the potential of breaking them like people
before who have often been broken by taking absolute positions against
more powerful forces. Consider Chinese in the Boxer Rebellion who
thought that painting themselves "magically" could stop bullets.
And in this case, breaking the absolutism of the mathematical
community is unlikely to happen without changing the economic
landscape of the entire world.
Whether you realize it or not the preamble with any factoring research
that I do is looking for some way to show it's trivial.
There is no way that I can see that mathematicians ignoring this
research and waiting until it matures is helpful for my own country,
currently the dominant world power.
But it is the decision of the modern mathematical and cryptography
community that holds sway here as the world trust you.
They trust you, so that is how you have the power to decide the fate
of the world.
If you all say it's not, and you're wrong, then the maturation process
of surrogate factoring can happen mostly in the dark, and the world
instead of facing a relatively new idea that has a distance to go in
order to be as powerful as it can be, can instead face a fully matured
factoring method--known because it is unleashed.
The issue here is ignorance in the now, and full realization later.
Or an end to the absolute position taken by the world's mathematical
community against my research now, versus later.
Fight me on this and you can wake up in a few years to a totally
changed world order where you helped create it, dashing the now
dominant countries to the ground on their fateful and naive trust in
your honesty about your discipline.
History shows that in these situations, your choice is usually against
your own best interest, which is why history is so interesting, as
empires fall not just on the decisions of the world leaders, but on
the seemingly minor ones of people at the fulcrum point.
And this time, in this history to be, the lever is surrogate
factoring, and I assure you that with years of research under my belt
I now even more firmly believe that it can move the world.
The challenge to me is to balance the needs of the many against the
wants of the few.
As I consider the livelihoods of mathematicians around the world, and
the savings of people around the world, including in my own country,
against the survival of the human race depending on ever forward
progress in our knowledge, science and technology.
Except I somewhat accidentally discovered how rapidly it can be
improved while typing in some numbers when I watched it factor a 100+
bit number, so already it is far beyond methods based on congruence of
squares at this point in its life, and has behavior more like Dixon's.
James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Let's recrap
- From: biggus
- Re: Let's recrap
- Prev by Date: Re: Distance between point and plane
- Next by Date: Re: Borel Field/sigma algebra
- Previous by thread: JSH: State of the research
- Next by thread: Re: Let's recrap
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
