Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

jstevh at msn.com

From:	jstevh at msn.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
Date:	21 Jan 2005 15:26:12 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> I figured, well, why not try.
>
> I'm running the numbers this guy put up through my current program
> which is at the Yahoo! group.
>
> Tim Smith wrote:
> > In article <1104591454.431335.128080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > > It turns out that the analysis behind my surrogate factoring
> approach is
> > > rather easy to walk though with a few basic equations.
> > >
> > > That should mean I can get people to take me seriously, but you
are
> > > Usenet, and the problem is held by the math community, so clear
> evidence
> > > may not work!
> >
> > All you have to do is show that it works. Here are some composite
> numbers
> > to test on. Each is the product of two primes whose length is up
to
> the
> > number of bits specified.
> >

Now I want to come back to what happened yesterday to explain why
Usenet is such a waste of time, as look at what happened despite my
demonstration.

I deleted out some extra to focus on some results where my method
worked.

> Same as above. Hopefully more interesting below.
>
> >
> > ====== factors up to 16 bits ======
> > 1996465633
>
> ( 35141 56813 )
>
> > 2348221831
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 3574886741
>
> ( 57679 61979 )
>
> > 3172590413
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 2514657533
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 1388161393
>
> ( 36217 38329 )
>
> > 2335689907
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 2493433781
>
> ( 41879 59539 )
>
> > 1840902013
>
> ( 39451 46663 )
>
> > 2095611269
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> >
> > ====== factors up to 24 bits ======
> > 135247262314741
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 239937525733091
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 119059652313451
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 177805283351779
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 140979690859369
>
> Couldn't find factors.
>
> > 137305167623353
>
> ( 11173213 12288781 )
>

Ok, I *honestly* gave back the program output, including a lot of
failures.

That's science. That's how you experiment.

You try and see what happens and take the failure with the successes to
learn from BOTH, but notice that posters stepped up to try and claim
total failure.

However, in the first section of any note, the program factored 50% of
the time.

If you pay attention to how I describe the program works, you'll know
that it recurses to factor T, the surrogate, which is used to factor M,
which is the target.

So, if it fails to find factors 50% of the time, when it recurses with
large numbers, it will rapidly do worse.

That's basic.

Now if Usenet posters were honest, then they'd acknowledge that and
maybe say more data was needed, but instead you'll see a lot of
criticisms.

But you see, Usenet is not a place where research gets done!!!

People who do much of the posting here aren't actually trying to
advance knowledge or trying to actually learn.

The people who mostly post are people with issues.

They don't care about facts or demonstrations.

They care about their psychological needs and whatever fantasy they are
playing out on Usenet.

Notice when I post, I'm asking for actual mathematical negatives as
well, like someone shooting down my theory.

I don't get those.

I get chattering, like playground stuff.

These people behave like children.

Now I've talked about this before, and yes, I'm here posting on Usenet,
and many might think I'm behaving like a child. Maybe so, but I say I
post here because I have few outlets to discuss mathematics, and at
least here I can talk out ideas, even if I just about never get useful
feedback.

Still it amazes me to watch people totally misinterpret experimental
data, like what was done with my results, and then act as if they're
intelligent, or should be taken at all seriously.

That's Usenet. At best it's a dumping ground like how I use it.
James Harris