| knowledge-database (beta) |
 |
Current group: sci.crypt
Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
| jstevh at msn.com | | Douglas A. Gwyn | | David C. Ullrich | | Douglas A. Gwyn |
|
|
| | From: | jstevh at msn.com | | Subject: | Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis | | Date: | 21 Jan 2005 14:51:11 -0800 |
|
|
 | Lits O'Hate wrote:
> jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> > > 137305167623353
> >
> > ( 11173213 12288781 )
> >
> > Whew! It's taking a lot longer now as the program really isn't
built
> > for large numbers, yet. It's a proof of concept prototype not
built
> > for speed.
> >
> > I was worried it might not factor any numbers of this size.
> >
> > Most of the time is taken with factoring T, the surrogate, and it's
> > possible that it's not decomposing it fully, but it got at least
one.
> >
> > Each factorization is taken a few minutes now...
>
> 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.
>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.
I have a sieve method that is similar that can factor much bigger
numbers and you don't get it.
How fast can your computer factor 15?
Are you really as stupid as you come across in your posts or are you
just playing a complete dumb-ass on Usenet?
James Harris
|
|
| | From: | Douglas A. Gwyn | | Subject: | Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:50:10 -0500 |
|
|
| jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> And you really can't be as stupid as you're playing here, as remember
> quantum factoring techniques?
> They factored 15, and made headlines.
Quantum computing is so technologically challenging
that even a "toy" implementation that really works
was newsworthy. The same would be true for the first
vacuum triode, the first germanium point-contact
transistor, the first MASER, etc. All these are
"proofs of the concept" and the expectation is that
since the idea has been shown to really work, the
details can be refined to provide improved technology
as time goes on.
The problem with all the factoring methods you have
so far posted is that they don't work even in "toy"
implementations. There is always some crucial gap
that never gets filled. We already know for sure
how to program universal factorization algorithms
that *do* always produce correct results, but they
run very slowly for large input values (that are
the product of two large primes, for example). If
you want genuine acclaim, you must show a single
*definite* method (algorithm) that (1) works
correctly for a large fraction of randomly chosen
large inputs and (2) works faster for large inputs
than other known correct factoring methods. So far,
you haven't exhibited such an algorithm.
Undr the circumstances, your complaints about not
being appreciated sound quite delusional. Why
*should* you be appreciated? It's not hard to come
up with incorrect, inefficient factoring methods.
|
|
| | From: | David C. Ullrich | | Subject: | Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:54:39 -0600 |
|
|
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:50:10 -0500, "Douglas A. Gwyn"
wrote:
>[...] It's not hard to come
>up with incorrect, inefficient factoring methods.
Oh? A google search on "incorrect, inefficient factoring methods"
returns no hits
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22incorrect%2C+inefficient+factoring+methods%22
And searching usenet for the same phrase gives only one hit, your post
(of course soon it will return this post as well):
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_epq=incorrect%2C%20inefficient%20factoring%20methods&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&lr=&hl=en
Maybe you should check the facts first before spouting off?
Giggle.
************************
David C. Ullrich
|
|
| | From: | Douglas A. Gwyn | | Subject: | Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:40:53 -0500 |
|
|
| David C. Ullrich wrote:
> wrote:
>>[...] It's not hard to come
>>up with incorrect, inefficient factoring methods.
> Oh? A google search on "incorrect, inefficient factoring methods"
> returns no hits
It's unlikely that anybody coming up with one would
publish it, promote it on the Internet, and *also*
label it as such.
> Giggle.
Tee hee.
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |