| knowledge-database (beta) |
 |
Current group: sci.crypt.
How I operate, surrogate factoring
| jstevh at msn.com | | David C. Ullrich | | Douglas A. Gwyn | | Larry Hammick | | rupertmccallum at yahoo.com | | David Kastrup | | guenther.vonKnakspott at gmx.de | | tomstdenis at gmail.com |
|
|
| | From: | jstevh at msn.com | | Subject: | How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 12:16:41 -0800 |
|
|
 | Ok, let me explain the purpose of my postings and how I operate as I'm
seeing posts from people indicating you don't understand what's going
on.
I talk out problems I'm working on.
You don't need to reply at all, or you can reply, and I may or not
respond depending on my mood, as since most of you replying don't
bother with mathematics, I typically end up replying when I wish to let
off steam by dumping on one of you.
I hypothesize in posts, and try to figure out difficult areas where I'm
stuck.
I have been stuck for a while, which is why you see this explosion of
posts.
The theory indicated that my method should work a lot better than I
thought I was seeing as I expected 100% factoring and was getting less,
much less as I used bigger numbers, which I can now explain as being a
result of the heavy recursion.
On its own based on the mathematics I've just worked out in the last
couple of days, the method factors well above 90%, but less than
perfect, if you understand recursion at all, means that as my
implementation recurses it pulls down even a starting high percentage
to one that drops rapidly to well below 50%.
That's not a big deal to me now, as it kind of pissed me off for a
while, and I just know there must be a way to get 100% factoring, but
90+ percent is good enough to still claim the factoring problem solved.
Now I'm focusing more on the underlying theory, and trying to get a
handle on some quirks. Besides the fundamental question remains: how
do you pick the surrogates?
Great fun. As I solve problems and feel less of a need to talk things
out, the postings will drop, and I may delete some out as well.
Eventually, I'll stop.
You need not reply to me. If no one replies at all, it won't make much
a difference. I just like talking problems I'm working on out.
If you wish to reply, that's your business. If you say something I can
seize on when I'm in a bad mood--frustrating work figuring these things
out--then I may happily do my best to jump all over you.
That's how I operate. Been doing it for years now. Haven't changed
much in all that time.
James Harris
|
|
| | From: | David C. Ullrich | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:08:52 -0600 |
|
|
| On 22 Jan 2005 12:16:41 -0800, jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>Ok, let me explain the purpose of my postings and how I operate as I'm
>seeing posts from people indicating you don't understand what's going
>on.
We know how you operate. Post some half-baked idea, proclaiming that
it's the solution to a huge problem. Then when it turns out not to
be, claim that you're just throwing ideas out there, not giving
actual solutions, while _simultaneously_ insisting that the people
saying it's not an actual solution are lying.
>[...]
>Great fun. As I solve problems and feel less of a need to talk things
>out, the postings will drop, and I may delete some out as well.
Of course you will. That's because you have no integrity.
>Eventually, I'll stop.
>
>You need not reply to me. If no one replies at all, it won't make much
>a difference. I just like talking problems I'm working on out.
>
>If you wish to reply, that's your business. If you say something I can
>seize on when I'm in a bad mood--frustrating work figuring these things
>out--then I may happily do my best to jump all over you.
Oh no.
************************
David C. Ullrich
|
|
| | From: | Douglas A. Gwyn | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:55:28 -0500 |
|
|
| jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> I talk out problems I'm working on.
That's not a good use of this newsgroup.
In fact it spawns a horrible waste of time.
|
|
| | From: | Larry Hammick | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:14:44 GMT |
|
|
|
wrote in message
news:1106425001.101803.195210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, let me explain the purpose of my postings and how I operate as I'm
> seeing posts from people indicating you don't understand what's going
> on.
He's talking to sci.crypt, I presume. Here's how JSH operates:
http://mathforum.org/epigone/alt.math.undergrad?in=early&from=2003-11-23&to=2003-11-23
For more examples, use Google with suitable search terms, such as
"bullshit".
|
|
| | From: | rupertmccallum at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 15:55:03 -0800 |
|
|
|
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
<...?
> That's not a big deal to me now, as it kind of pissed me off for a
> while, and I just know there must be a way to get 100% factoring, but
> 90+ percent is good enough to still claim the factoring problem
solved.
>
No it's not. The factoring problem is the problem of coming up with a
polynomial-time algorithm that will factor an arbitrary positive
integer.
|
|
| | From: | David Kastrup | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:44:21 +0100 |
|
|
| jstevh@msn.com writes:
> I have been stuck for a while, which is why you see this explosion
> of posts.
>
> The theory indicated that my method should work a lot better than I
> thought I was seeing as I expected 100% factoring and was getting
> less, much less as I used bigger numbers, which I can now explain as
> being a result of the heavy recursion.
Uh, recursing on 100% correct results with a 100% correct algorithm
gives you 100% correct results. Regardless of how heavy the recursing
happens to be.
> That's how I operate. Been doing it for years now. Haven't changed
> much in all that time.
You can say that again.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
|
|
| | From: | guenther.vonKnakspott at gmx.de | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 08:12:26 -0800 |
|
|
|
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> James Harris
Hmmm..
Now, that was one great job of a parody. Now, whoever you are that
hijaked Harris' Id, please give it back to him, least we loose his
invaluable contributions
Andr=E9s
|
|
| | From: | tomstdenis at gmail.com | | Subject: | Re: How I operate, surrogate factoring | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 12:36:12 -0800 |
|
|
| Ok, you've solved factoring. I'll give you that. Now give us the
running time of your algorithm [or as precise estimate you can].
Tom
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |