Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

tomstdenis at gmail.com

From:	tomstdenis at gmail.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
Date:	21 Jan 2005 15:01:19 -0800

jst...@msn.com wrote:
> > By way of comparison, using Cygwin on my 2.66Ghz XP box, the
"factor"
> > command correctly factors 137305167623353 in 202 milliseconds.
>
> I wrote a prototype test program to test out my new factoring method.

No, you solved factoring remember? Your program wasn't a prototype.
It was THE solution.

> >From my position, it's just great that it works AT ALL.
>
> And you really can't be as stupid as you're playing here, as remember
> quantum factoring techniques?
>
> What have they factored?
>
> They factored 15, and made headlines.

They didn't use a general purpose CPU that has been around for decades.
I say the first person to factor 512-bit numbers on a single AA
battery [no matter what "computer" they use] deserves mention to.
Sometimes "innovation" is good. Specially when it's backed by some
real science.

> I have a sieve method that is similar that can factor much bigger
> numbers and you don't get it.

No, we don't care. You can't explain your method outside of dozens of
equations. How about you explain in ENGLISH why you think your
algorithm is a good idea.

And in general being able to factor a COUPLE 24-bit numbers is not that
impressive.

> How fast can your computer factor 15?

My computer is a 6809 with 4KB of ram you incensitive clod!

> Are you really as stupid as you come across in your posts or are you
> just playing a complete dumb-ass on Usenet?

Oh oh oh. Is this where I go "ny'huh I know you are but what am I?"
Tom