Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: fortune.bruce on 17 Apr 2008 22:14 On Apr 17, 1:22 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 huhti, 00:03, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 15 huhti, 17:34, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 14, 10:31 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 12, 4:51 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > No one for instance has > > > > > referred to prior art when it comes to my method. > > > > > This is false. Dik Winter told you that what you were doing > > > > was just a (disguised) form of Fermat's Method. This certainly > > > > IS a reference to prior art. > > > > No comments? I would be especially interested in comments from > > > those who felt that I was being a "jerk". > > > Lesson learnt #1: In academia, the form is more important > > than the substance. > > No comments? I would be especially interested in > comments from those who felt that I was exhibiting > "hallmarks of a crank". > > - Risto - OK. Around here... It is common, trivial knowledge that to properly "work" mathematics and be versed and able to do anything correct, that you need to follow certain guidelines and learn certain facts, reading seminal books and building on this knowledge using fairly simple structure and curriculum (I'm not saying math is easy, but the steps to take to get to more complex math are well known and trivial). It is common, trivial knowledge that in sci.crypt (and likely sci.math) that math is taken very seriously because failure in implementing correctly can have dire consequences. This is not a forgiving environment for those that exhibit lack of basic math knowledge that also feel compelled to say "Hey... look what I've invented" It is common, trivial knowledge that math utilizes terms which must be used correctly and be mastered. The true math pros have these embedded and know them like they know their own name. They use them correctly as second nature and can use this as knowledge to teach. It is common, trivial knowledge that those individuals that exhibit a lack of knowledge of basic math tenets and terms, yet who invent their own terms and repeat them as something everyone should try and understand are trouble walking and likely clueless cranks. It is common, trivial knowledge that when someone clearly clueless about aspects of math (or crypto) that are very well known is impervious to correction from multiple experts and continues to disregard their coaching, that person is very likely a crank. It is common, trivial knowledge around here that when an individual, clearly wrong in their thinking, and has been impervious to coaching from the pros, finally begins their exit that they make sure everyone knows they'll be back with the same incorrect information packaged in another way and then feel compelled to state the lessons they've learned (always in a backhanded way), and in those lessons truly get it wrong. These persons tend to be close to 100% cranks. It is common, trivial knowledge that in math (as in other areas) the form is critical and tightly tied to substance and the ability to communicate correctly from one person to the next. All these things seem to have escaped your superfine mind. You feign surprise, but the crank doth protest too much, methinks. You claim to be a layman. All that means is you are not a professional. You admonish all not to think of you as "uneducated", and recommend we all hold you "self-educated", but when one is incorrectly, or poorly, "self-educated" are we not back to approaching "uneducated"? Two weeks into this and managing to be undeterred by the coaching of multiple experts, you incorrectly claim no prior art on your "invention" and almost immediately your argument is squashed by fact and this doesn't slow you down a bit. This is crank behavior. Even though you haven't knowledge of somewhat basic math terms, you continue to use your made-up term "Complex Base Digital Analysis" like we all should just shut up and study it. Pure crankitude. I could go on, dude. Bruce
From: Risto Lankinen on 18 Apr 2008 03:52 On 18 huhti, 05:14, fortune.br...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > I could go on, dude. Please do. But before that, I humbly beg you to take a look at the thread named "FactoriComplex device" in these same newsgroups (plus comp.theory that you left out from your reply). Currently (many of) you ignore my work on the basis that nothing useful can come out from me. Fine, but what then is a better way to get my work evaluated by a professional? I really really really wish that you would take a look at the article. It describes a constraint-matching device that can be used to find a square root of a gaussian integer. What's incredible about it, is that relaxing a constraint (the red cups - see the article) turns it into a factoring device. This is paradoxical, because square root is easy and factoring hard, whilst relaxing constraints should make the task easier. <sigh> - Risto -
From: Tim Little on 18 Apr 2008 05:46 On 2008-04-18, Risto Lankinen <rlankine(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is paradoxical, because square root is easy and factoring hard, > whilst relaxing constraints should make the task easier. Factoring is very easy. It's just slow, for numbers that are very large. I'm not surprised that relaxing a constraint could turn a slow square-root finding method into a slow factoring method. - Tim
From: Risto Lankinen on 18 Apr 2008 06:43 On 18 huhti, 05:14, fortune.br...(a)gmail.com wrote: > I could go on, dude. Gotcha. I figure it's still OK for me to ask questions. Question to math experts: There's an infinite array A of integers. Most elements of the array are zero, but a finite subset have some other positive value. All elements obey the following constraint: FLOOR(A[n]/2) = SUM(i=1..inf,(A[n-1] MOD 2)*(A[n+1] MOD 2)) How do I prove that the total sum of elements is a square integer? - Risto -
From: quasi on 17 Apr 2008 18:50
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:43:45 -0700 (PDT), Risto Lankinen <rlankine(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 18 huhti, 05:14, fortune.br...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> I could go on, dude. > >Gotcha. I figure it's still OK for me to ask questions. > >Question to math experts: > >There's an infinite array A of integers. Most elements >of the array are zero, but a finite subset have some >other positive value. All elements obey the following >constraint: > >FLOOR(A[n]/2) = SUM(i=1..inf,(A[n-1] MOD 2)*(A[n+1] MOD 2)) Something's wrong with the RHS. The index variable i doesn't get used. Presumably, the i'th summand should depend on both i and n. quasi |