Re: Factorisation algorithms
- From: Rick Decker <rdecker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:36:36 -0400
matt271829-news@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 17, 5:23 am, i...@xxxxxxxxx (Randy Hudson) wrote:While it depends on context, one generally measures theIn article <1192584825.140877.253...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<matt271829-n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The numbers involved are O( N! ); that's O( (N/e)^N ) .He also cites Shamir, _Inf. Proc. Letters_ 8 (1979), pp 28-31, for aI have a feeling that this might be a very stupid question, but, even
demonstration that, if the processing time for an arithmetic operation is
independent of the size of the numbers involved, then N can be factored in
at most O( ln(N) ^2 ) times that processing time.
allowing for the fact that in reality arithmetic takes longer for
larger numbers, isn't O( ln(N) ^2 ) still very much better than any
known algorithm? I'm assuming that the numbers involved are at worst
O(N).
I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing as Phil Carmody. What is
N? Is it the actual number to be factorised, or is it the "length" of
the number (i.e. the number of decimal digits, or bits)?
running time of an algorithm as a function of of the "size"
of the input, i.e., the number of bits it takes to represent the
input. In short, Phil is right, as usual.
Regards,
Rick
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Factorisation algorithms
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: Factorisation algorithms
- References:
- Factorisation algorithms
- From: matt271829-news
- Re: Factorisation algorithms
- From: Randy Hudson
- Re: Factorisation algorithms
- From: matt271829-news
- Re: Factorisation algorithms
- From: Randy Hudson
- Re: Factorisation algorithms
- From: matt271829-news
- Factorisation algorithms
- Prev by Date: Re: need help trying to understand the Radon transform
- Next by Date: Re: need help trying to understand the Radon transform
- Previous by thread: Re: Factorisation algorithms
- Next by thread: Re: Factorisation algorithms
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading