| knowledge-database (beta) |
 |
Current group: sci.crypt
Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method
| jstevh at msn.com | | Lits O'Hate | | ošin | | rupertmccallum at yahoo.com | | Xcott Craver | | jstevh at msn.com | | David Eather | | Lits O'Hate |
|
|
| | From: | jstevh at msn.com | | Subject: | Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | 20 Jan 2005 16:58:34 -0800 |
|
|
 | >From what I'm seeing my method factors about 50% of the time, which
kind of fits with the quadratic residues, you know?
But it seems to be LESS than that at times, which probably has to do
with the heavy recursion in my research program.
Then again, it seems to me that if the mathematics is simultaneously
checking every freaking combination of factors of j^2 T d^2, where d
can be almost any integer--oops on my last post as d^2 = 1 mod
g^2--then it should be able to more than 50% of the time find some
goddamn freaking factor!!!
Oh well, I'm kind of depressed.
I was looking for a perfect method. A perfect method for factoring,
and it looks like I got some freak thing that works about 50% of the
time.
I'm pissed. Looks like it's time to go back to basic research to find
that perfect solution.
Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.
It's math, no point in cursing, as the logic is perfect, but there must
be a way.
Oh, yeah, so why does my program work less than 50% of the time?
Well it's heavily recursive as it loops to find factors of T, to then
try and find factors of M. Well about 50% of the time it will get all
the factors, so 50% of the time it will not, so with the heavy
recursion, the probability of factoring a given number drops with the
recursion.
The bigger the number, the more it recurses.
I feel there's a perfect solution. I wish to find it. I will think
some more.
Time for coffee.
James Harris
|
|
| | From: | Lits O'Hate | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 16:10:58 -0800 |
|
|
|
rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> "I'm pissed" means "I'm drunk" in Australia, but I've heard it
doesn't
> necessarily mean that in the US.
In the case of James Harris, it's a safe bet that both meanings apply.
|
|
| | From: | ošin | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:11:33 -0800 |
|
|
| > I'm pissed. Looks like it's time to go back to basic research to find
> that perfect solution.
>
> Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.
Two days ago, in your thread titled "Factoring problem, solved", you said:
"I am increasingly certain that I've solved the factoring problem."
So, why were you so sure that you were correct then? And when others told
you that you had really not solved the problem, you would not listen. This
is the way you have operated for years. How many times did you do this same
stunts with that ridiculous FLT crap?
Give it a break James. Get yourself a lover or take up golf. But please stop
trying to do math.
|
|
| | From: | rupertmccallum at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 15:20:07 -0800 |
|
|
|
Lits O'Hate wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>
> > Oh well, I'm kind of depressed.
> >
> > I'm pissed. Looks like it's time to go back to basic research to
> find
> > that perfect solution.
> >
> > Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.
>
> That was quick. Seven minutes ago you posted about the "sheer joy"
> you were experiencing doing EXTREME MATHEMATICS.
>
> But not to worry. After a few more drinks your research will produce
> an innovative way to be wrong about exactly the same thing.
> Bottom's up!
"I'm pissed" means "I'm drunk" in Australia, but I've heard it doesn't
necessarily mean that in the US.
|
|
| | From: | Xcott Craver | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:44:27 GMT |
|
|
| wrote:
>
>"I'm pissed" means "I'm drunk" in Australia, but I've heard it doesn't
>necessarily mean that in the US.
No, in the USA it means angry and annoyed.
Also, in the USA, "fanny" means bum, rather than vagina. In fact,
it's a euphemism, used by prudish Americans who are uncomfortable
saying "butt."
-Xcott
|
|
| | From: | jstevh at msn.com | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 15:33:11 -0800 |
|
|
| rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> Lits O'Hate wrote:
> > jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > > Oh well, I'm kind of depressed.
> > >
> > > I'm pissed. Looks like it's time to go back to basic research to
> > find
> > > that perfect solution.
> > >
> > > Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.
> >
> > That was quick. Seven minutes ago you posted about the "sheer joy"
> > you were experiencing doing EXTREME MATHEMATICS.
> >
> > But not to worry. After a few more drinks your research will
produce
> > an innovative way to be wrong about exactly the same thing.
> > Bottom's up!
>
> "I'm pissed" means "I'm drunk" in Australia, but I've heard it
doesn't
> necessarily mean that in the US.
No, it doesn't. I wasn't exactly drunk, but...in any event, all that
emotion was more of a release than anything else.
Yes, I was ranting, and did some more ranting today!
Well, it's not a big deal, in the big scheme of things.
I'm getting ready to shift focus back off Usenet as it has served its
purpose.
Talking out my current results has helped me figure some things out.
Now I'm going to take some time to write everything out, and cover
every mathematical detail VERY carefully.
You people have been useful to me.
Thank you.
James Harris
|
|
| | From: | David Eather | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:40:45 +1000 |
|
|
| jstevh@msn.com wrote:
>> From what I'm seeing my method factors about 50% of the time, which
> kind of fits with the quadratic residues, you know?
>
> But it seems to be LESS than that at times, which probably has to do
> with the heavy recursion in my research program.
>
> Then again, it seems to me that if the mathematics is simultaneously
> checking every freaking combination of factors of j^2 T d^2, where d
> can be almost any integer--oops on my last post as d^2 = 1 mod
> g^2--then it should be able to more than 50% of the time find some
> goddamn freaking factor!!!
>
> Oh well, I'm kind of depressed.
>
> I was looking for a perfect method. A perfect method for factoring,
> and it looks like I got some freak thing that works about 50% of the
> time.
>
> I'm pissed. Looks like it's time to go back to basic research to find
> that perfect solution.
>
> Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.
>
> It's math, no point in cursing, as the logic is perfect, but there
> must be a way.
>
> Oh, yeah, so why does my program work less than 50% of the time?
>
> Well it's heavily recursive as it loops to find factors of T, to then
> try and find factors of M. Well about 50% of the time it will get all
> the factors, so 50% of the time it will not, so with the heavy
> recursion, the probability of factoring a given number drops with the
> recursion.
>
> The bigger the number, the more it recurses.
>
> I feel there's a perfect solution. I wish to find it. I will think
> some more.
>
> Time for coffee.
>
>
> James Harris
You don't have the right to whine about "all that wasted effort"
Mums, Dads, teachers, tradesmen and researcher often put in days and week
with no rewards, and latter they get up and try again. Form the "rapid"
change in your rubbish, and the amount of useful information you did not
accept or read - you don't even make the list. You are just a time-burglar
stealing time from others
|
|
| | From: | Lits O'Hate | | Subject: | Re: Roughly about 50% factoring, JSH method | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 10:56:58 -0800 |
|
|
|
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Oh well, I'm kind of depressed.
>
> I'm pissed. Looks like it's time to go back to basic research to
find
> that perfect solution.
>
> Dammit. Dammit. Dammit.
That was quick. Seven minutes ago you posted about the "sheer joy"
you were experiencing doing EXTREME MATHEMATICS.
But not to worry. After a few more drinks your research will produce
an innovative way to be wrong about exactly the same thing.
Bottom's up!
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |