Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

jstevh at msn.com

Bryan Olson

Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

oðin

From:	jstevh at msn.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
Date:	20 Jan 2005 17:11:35 -0800

Bryan Olson wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> [...]
> > The question is, what are the limits? Why does it factor some
numbers
> > and not others? It looks from this little experiment like it's
getting
> > worse as the numbers get bigger which is a bad sign, but what are
the
> > mathematical reasons why?
>
> I expect those results are telling us something. If you recall
> your previous "surrogate factoring" algorithm, it was simply
> checking the greatest common divisor of the target and some not-
> so-interesting numbers. The method amounted to "trial GCD".
>

Sigh. Do you have any idea what the probability is of factoring those
numbers that DID factor by trial is?

If so, please post the information.

I suspect you're just another Usenet poster without a clue who wishes
to broadcast that to the world.

You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts.

You are putting your stupidity on wide display.

> The tendency to find small factors and miss large ones is what
> we'd expect from such guess-and-check methods when the guesses
> are more or less arbitrary.
>

You clearly don't know anything.

Write your own freaking guess program and see if you factor ANY of
those numbers.

I'm challenging you to write a guess program that factors a single one
of the numbers.

Try it, and then post.

James Harris

From:	Bryan Olson
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:25:55 GMT

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
[...]
> I suspect you're just another Usenet poster without a clue who wishes
> to broadcast that to the world.

I'm also the Usenet poster to whom you wrote:

| Yup. You were *exactly* right Bryan, and I want to thank
| you for noticing that and for repeatedly pointing it out.

(Admittedly, that was not your last word on the subject.)

Here, I wrote about your algorithm and about interpreting your
program's results. Why do you insist on making personal attacks?

--
--Bryan

From:	oðin
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:10:22 -0800

>
> Sigh. Do you have any idea what the probability is of factoring those
> numbers that DID factor by trial is?

Ummmm.... James... those numbers yuo refer to are tiny factoring problems
compared to RSA. Those numbers, on a run-of-the-mill PC can be factored in
seconds, using trial division which is the simplest factoring algorithms
possible. But unlike your crappolla algorithm, trial division actually
works! FOAD.