Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: Rotwang on 12 Apr 2008 19:01 On 12 Apr, 23:13, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 3:01 pm, tc...(a)lsa.umich.edu wrote: > > > In article <fd30cce9-7fcb-427c-9131-c20659d85...(a)y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >Why? I like the sports analogy as it is deliberately a way to step > > >far enough away from academics to show just how truly bizarre are > > >attacks against novice investigators as imagine Tiger Woods attacking > > >an amateur about his golf. > > > >You can't. > > > That's mostly because it's difficult to imagine an amateur confidently > > claiming to be much better than Tiger Woods, when he or she isn't. > > On what planet? > > Every day on THIS planet there are probably hundreds of amateur > golfers declaring themselves to be as good as or greater than Tiger > Woods, at least in some particular area. > > But why would Tiger Woods care? > > Why would a top mathematician--one who TRULY is top--care about some > amateur talking about that person's own research as if it's great? Exactly. And, as has been repeatedly pointed out when you use the Tiger Woods analogy, the people who are the mathematical equivalent of Tiger Woods - people like Wiles, for example - don't care about some amateur talking about his own research. They ignore you. The people who bother to argue with the falsehoods you post on sci.math are just people with too much free time, many of them amateurs themselves (like me, for example) who just don't like watching bullshit go unchallenged. If you think that this is peculiar to "math people" then try going to rec.sport.golf and start a hundred threads in which you claim to be better at golf than Tiger Woods, and see how the regulars there react. > > Who cares? Why does it matter? > > > Without commenting on Bob Silverman in particular, I can say with confidence > > that there many extremely brilliant and accomplished people who are also > > jerks and who do not hesitate to attack others. Some of them attack others > > But what if that's a lie? > > I suggest you consider the possibility that maybe they are NOT really > accomplished but people just say they are. > > How do you know the difference? Some of us are actually clever enough to read that stuff you call "math-ese" and understand it. > > I challenge you to prove that most top mathematicians today are not > fakes who lie about their research and are supported by other > mathematicians who lie about their research. > > How do you prove that to be not true? The proof is there in the books and journals, for anybody to see. You just refuse to look at it. > > > regardless of "rank"; others attack only easy targets and are obsequious to > > people of high status. Of course, there are many extremely brilliant and > > accomplished people who are extraordinarily gracious and patient. > > > Being unfairly ignored because you don't have the right pedigree is still > > a widespread phenomenon in today's world. Being ignored because you're an > > idiot who is oblivious to your own idiocy is an even more widespread > > phenomenon. > > Yup. Ignoring someone is the way of the world when someone does not > threaten you nor do they interest you. > > The real point of my analogy is that Tiger Woods just doesn't have any > reason to care. > > So he can ignore all those amateurs out there who proudly may proclaim > that they can putt better or drive better or whatever. Just like Wiles ignores you, right? > > > In short, there's no way to tell for sure whether an idea has merit purely > > by observing the behavior of the parties concerned. Surely this truism was > > obvious from the start? > > It's a lie. > > People show interest in the things that interest them. > > Like I have an interest in pointing out stupid lies that people like > you push as truisms. > > So I take the time to post in reply to you. > > Do you take time to do things that do not interest you? > > Does anyone really? Of course they do. Do you think it interests people whether they finish a game of Freecell? Not really, but people still do it. Everyone has their own ways of wasting time, and some of us choose to do so by arguing with cranks on Usenet. > > Is there a separate type of human being from mathematicians, who > actually cares about the things he or she takes interest in, versus > mathematicians who can take an interest in ripping on nobodies that > they should be ignoring, but instead take the time to rip on. > > Who worries about non-threats? Who do you think is worried about you?
From: Risto Lankinen on 13 Apr 2008 04:46 On 13 huhti, 01:42, "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In sci.math Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >What DOES hurt me is condemnation without proper examination of the > >evidence. No one for instance has referred to prior art when it comes > >to my method. > In case of algorithms it is customary to judge their merits on their so > called 'complexity' or 'running time' or 'asymptotic growth rate', apart > from their correctness, of course. For your algorithm this is rather easy: > it is O(Sqrt[n]) Easy or not, your analysis is incorrect (it is too optimistic). Obviously you refer to my C++ code since I didn't give any algorithm in the puzzle formulation. The function Squirt() scans every bit (Log[n]) and for each, it counts equidistant odd bits (Log[n]). The main function iterates the imaginary part of n+ki, and in the worst case (when n is prime) ki can be as high as (n^2-1)/2. Correct asymptotic is therefore O(n^2*Log[n]*Log[n]). Note that I have _never_ claimed efficiency, but novelty, and AFAIK, no one has used similar technique (Complex Base Digital Analysis) for factorization. - Risto -
From: fortune.bruce on 13 Apr 2008 13:24 On Apr 12, 3:09 pm, "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In sci.math Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > > > "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Facts: > >> - Lankinen shows a very high resistance to corrections, the primary sign of > >> a luser and a crank. > >Go back and read the whole thread. When corrected by people who are > >helpful in their corrections, he has not shown high resistance. > > Have you? > > Note that the real beginning of this thread started 30th March crossposted > to rec.puzzles, sci.math and sci.crypt with Lankinen's first post: > > "Given integers x >=y, define a=(x+y)/2 and d=(x-y)/2 . Semanticly > 'a' is the average of x and y, and 'd' is the difference of 'a' and > either. > > Then (a+di)^2 = (a^2-d^2)+2ad = xy + 2adi . > > Consequently, to factorize a given n = xy one needs to find a > square root of (n+ki) [where k needs to be computed] so that > SQRT(n+ki) = (a+di). Done that, the factors x=a+d and y=a-d > are trivially found. > > Is there any literature [preferably pointers to the 'net] about > any factorization algorithm that relies on this premise?" > > So far so good. He was pointed to Fermat's factorization algorithm and the > sad fact was mentioned that his solution would not be very useful for > today's factoring needs because the computational complexity is too high. > > Then he started arguing, never directly addressing the counterarguments, > but he showed that he didn't have sufficient mathematical knowledge and > experience. Again, so far so good, live and learn, just a flesh wound, > etc. > > However, when this lacune was pointed out he started accusing others of ad > hominem attacks while still not addressing the counterarguments. _That_ is > not good. It is the true sign of a Usenet crank. > > >Silverman's corrections are basically just a declaration that he knows > >more (true), that Lankinen's approach is completely worthless [...] > > Yes but only after Dik Winter fruitlessly tried to argue with Lankinen. > Politeness goes only so far. > > >But how about including in that last a useful suggestion as to how to > >learn more? Just telling him to read a book is not all that useful. > >How about naming a specific book? > > Would _you_ do it? After ten such posters? A hundred? A thousand? If you > would google for the keywords that were mentioned, or used Wikipedia and > Wolfram's Mathworld you would have pointers for a few years of study. > > My biased suggestions would be R. P. Grimaldi, "Discrete and Combinatorial > Mathematics" and N. Smart, "Cryptography. An Introduction", basically > because both books show a fair bit of the fun of doing mathematics, which I > found sorely lacking in the most of my math textbooks and college handouts.. > > But most importantly, you learn math by doing and by arguing with (real) > people. Books are not sufficient, nor newsgroups. > > >>What is the use of indiscriminately praising Lankinen and thus encouraging > >>him to waste more time? > >Who has indiscriminately praised him? > > It is a rethorical, hypothetical question. By taking his side against the > 'jerks' you implicitly tell him he's right and that he should ignore what > they're saying. > > >As for wasting time, quite a few mathematicians I've known started out > >wasting time that way. [...] > > So did I with applied math and computer science, but I use(d) continuous > feedback to improve myself, not dragging out pointless arguments. > > >The only thing Lankinen has done wrong here is, perhaps, posting in the > >wrong groups. > > And staunchly ignoring hints. > > >Being smart does not mean one has to be a jerk to beginners. > > No, but being a beginner does not mean one has to be a bore to the more > experienced. > > scs Thank you for continuing to make perfect sense. Bruce
From: Matthew T. Russotto on 13 Apr 2008 17:15 In article <50df7fb2-6265-4bd4-ab86-67a213562175(a)w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Every day on THIS planet there are probably hundreds of amateur >golfers declaring themselves to be as good as or greater than Tiger >Woods, at least in some particular area. Sure, I'm better than Tiger Woods in the area of computer programming. But how many amateur golfers are claiming -- seriously, now, not just bombastically -- to be better than Tiger Woods in some area of golf? And who would believe those few? -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
From: Rotwang on 13 Apr 2008 20:02
On 14 Apr, 00:48, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 13, 2:12 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) > wrote: > > > Oh, I don't know. I think sometimes truly successful people have > > every reason to attack and discredit fools, using their successful > > position to raise the signal to noise ratio. > > -- > > Name one who does. John Baez. |