Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis

tomstdenis at gmail.com

From:	tomstdenis at gmail.com
Subject:	Re: Surrogate factoring approach, analysis
Date:	21 Jan 2005 16:41:44 -0800

jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> tomstdenis@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> No you stupid person. The paper is THE solution, or was supposed to
> be, though my research found I'd found a 50% solution, in that it
will
> work 50% of the time, which is astounding in and of itself.

Calling me stupid doesn't change the "facts" so why bother. You might
as well call me male, young and Canadian for the lot of good it will do
your discussion...

As for 50% of the time... some questions

1. What is the work effort required WHEN it does succeed
2. Why does it fail?
3. Can you work around the failure?
4. Are my eyes blue?

> The program was always a prototype mainly meant to demonstrate that
the
> ideas in the paper actually work--you do get factorizations.

But you don't.

Don't you see the [... this is starting to become a dumb question ...]
see the problem with your attitude? You called us all stupid, claimed
factoring was easy and turns out your algorithm is crap [I haven't run
it but coming from you I'm sure it doesn't work].

By your claims your "theory" was air-tight. Now you're saying it's
not. What credibility [if any you had before] do you have now?

> Now, I don't think you have an ounce of sense or real mathematical
> ability, so you will probably just say something silly in response,
not
> realizing that I'm talking about an actual paper, an actual program,
> and actual results.

Hi, I'm Tom. I wrote a TEXTBOOK on multiple precision arithmetic.
Check your facts next time.

> The theory I have so far factors 50% of the time because of quadratic
> residues.

"because of quadratic residues" is not a complete thought. You could
have said "because of jacobi congruences" for all it would matter.

> That's provable mathematically.

No it's jibberish incomplete thoughts.

> Now you can keep chattering all you wish and it won't change a thing.

Sadly I'm in this thread for the sport of it. Not because I think it's
in any way productive.

> Remember, you're the crank here. I have an actual paper, and an
actual
> program implementing ideas from that paper.

I know you are. What am I?

> You on the other hand are just talking.

No actually I've http://libtomcrypt.org been spending
http://math.libtomcrypt.org some time http://poly.libtomcrypt.org
working on projects used by the industry http://scea.com [for instance]
.....

> If you wish to do something, talk some math. Attack the theory in my
> paper. Explain why my claim of 50% factoring is wrong.

Why? I've got work todo of my own. Why don't you explain why I would
give a damn to actually read your "theory"? If you can't [or won't] do
that then suffer the indignity of the average zero-sum reply.

> Do something besides talk...oh, wait. You can't, now can you?

YOU ALREADY SAID THIS IN THIS VERY POST. Stop repeating yourself!!!

> If you had any ability, you would show it.
> ALL you can do is talk, so that's what you do.
And you have proof of this?

Tom