Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- From: JSH <jstevh@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:29:31 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 19, 8:55 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 19, 11:18 am, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:54 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 17, 8:14 pm, JSH <jst...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The alternative is a very public demonstration, like factoring RSA
public keys in posts on this newsgroup, but I project that afterwards
stock markets around the world would crumble, and what's happening now
with them would look like the good 'ol days.
A convincing and perfectly safe demonstration would be
to factor RSA challenge numbers that have already been
factored, such as RSA-140.
Go for it.
Another convincing demonstration would be to factor
some small primes, say of 4, 5, ..., 9 digits, and give
us run times for your algorithm to show us how it scales.
Then we could project that up to hundreds of digits.
The advantage of using 9 and fewer digits is that you
don't need to use an arbitrary-precision library, you
can use your built-in integer types.
Hint: If you find that your factoring of an RSA key is
projected to take 100 orders of magnitude more than
the age of the universe, then world civilization won't
end. We already know it's possible in principle to factor
these keys. Their safety lies in the fact that it takes
more time than anybody has to do so.
- Randy
Seemingly reasonable suggestions that ignore the realities of the
situation.
For those who think that is a dodge,
It's a dodge.
I've simplified a bit to get a
result that looks more directly related to factoring, where the point
I want to make is--these are fundamental relations.
Are they applicable to factoring? Have you "solved the
factoring problem"? Can your "fundamental relation" make any
difference whatsoever in the time it takes to factor large primes?
Prove it: Factor one.
- Randy
There is no factoring outside of the rules shown by the factoring
congruences.
So even what factoring that is done today by other methods like the
Number Field Sieve is within that framework.
The point I'm making now is that even with absolute evidence from
mathematical proof, in a system easily explained, math people keep
trotting out the only thing left to deny overwhelming evidence which
is to demand that I personally factor some large number.
As I've pointed out before, it's like if physicists had told Einstein
to build an atomic bomb before they'd believe him about this
relativity nonsense!
Math people have changed the rules, yet again. Just like when I was
published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.
I'm not the one making the doge. The math community is.
It has now backed down to a corner where it's saying I have to be the
one to demonstrate, but with fundamental mathematics, why wouldn't
someone else exploit it?
To math people who are used to getting away with denial the simple
notion that someone else in the world would exploit the mathematical
ideas is foreign to them.
They won't believe it until they see it. Just like they won't believe
mathematical proof until someone demonstrates it works.
Like they won't believe in anything until it explodes in their faces,
as if physicists had denied Einstein until the first atomic bomb was
exploded and a bunch of them went with it as they were sitting on top
of it with their arms crossed saying it wouldn't work.
James Harris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- References:
- JSH: So what do we do now?
- From: JSH
- Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- From: Randy Poe
- JSH: So what do we do now?
- Prev by Date: Re: JSH: Cyberattacks against cities
- Next by Date: Re: Building a mathematical model of hot bubble fusion in liquid metal.
- Previous by thread: Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- Next by thread: Re: JSH: So what do we do now?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|