Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: Risto Lankinen on 9 Apr 2008 13:15 On 9 huhti, 20:08, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Could you please tell me _WHY_ you think my approach is > > a dead end? Based on your own claim, you never dug into > > the code I sent. > > (1) Presenting code only serves to obfuscate the underlying method. > If you want to present an algorithm then do so. Please advice about _HOW_. I've already tried my best. - Risto -
From: Phil Carmody on 9 Apr 2008 14:14 Risto Lankinen <rlankine(a)gmail.com> writes: > On 9 huhti, 20:08, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > Could you please tell me _WHY_ you think my approach is > > > a dead end? �Based on your own claim, you never dug into > > > the code I sent. > > > > (1) Presenting code only serves to obfuscate the underlying method. > > � � If you want to present an algorithm then do so. > > Please advice about _HOW_. I've already tried my best. Don't use a low level computer language, use a high level description, human-readability is more important than it being a real computer language. Don't fuss with unimportant implementation details, work on the principle that the implementation of common primitives is already well known. So the description of a simple P-1-like factoring algorithm would be: Given integer N Select a suitable bound B Take a random integer 2<b<N-1 For each prime p<B Let b = b^(p^i) modulo N where i is maximal and p^i<=B If gcd(b-1, N) is 1, repeat with a higher bound Else if it's N, then repeat with a lower bound Otherwise, it's a factor of N No more details than that are required for a high level description of the algorithm. How to implement modular exponentiation, for example, is an unimportant implementation detail. Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
From: Pubkeybreaker on 9 Apr 2008 14:33 On Apr 9, 1:15 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 huhti, 20:08, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Could you please tell me _WHY_ you think my approach is > > > a dead end? Based on your own claim, you never dug into > > > the code I sent. > > > (1) Presenting code only serves to obfuscate the underlying method. > > If you want to present an algorithm then do so. > > Please advice about _HOW_. I've already tried my best. Yes. Which is why I presented the analogy with medicine. It is pointless for someone without the requisite knowledge to try to invent a new surgical procedure. Your reply here shows that you lack the basic knowledge to do what you are trying to do. It would be impossible for me to give a full semester course on the design and analysis of algorithms with just a few paragraphs. Pick up a book on algorithms. Read it. See how algorithms are described. Go back and study basic high school level mathematics. Learn how to do a proof. Learn about the complexity of algorithms. And above all, study what has ALREADY been done concerning whatever field of knowledge it is that you are trying to expand. Otherwise, you would eternally be trying to reinvent the wheel by replacing it with a square wheel. I'm not trying to be insulting.
From: Risto Lankinen on 9 Apr 2008 15:35 On 9 huhti, 21:33, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 1:15 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 huhti, 20:08, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > Could you please tell me _WHY_ you think my approach is > > > > a dead end? Based on your own claim, you never dug into > > > > the code I sent. > > > > (1) Presenting code only serves to obfuscate the underlying method. > > > If you want to present an algorithm then do so. > > > Please advice about _HOW_. I've already tried my best. > > Yes. Which is why I presented the analogy with medicine. > It is pointless for someone without the requisite knowledge > to try to invent a new surgical procedure. Your reply here > shows that you lack the basic knowledge to do what you are > trying to do. Ad hominem usually indicates lack of material arguments. But hey, I'm not doing this for you, sir. You've taught me a lot. Not about math, but about math community! I will continue enjoying the ride on the passenger seat, where it is possible to observe the landscape. But you, sir, on the driver's seat, please keep your eyes on the road. - Risto -
From: Pubkeybreaker on 10 Apr 2008 07:47
On Apr 9, 3:35 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 huhti, 21:33, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 1:15 pm, Risto Lankinen <rlank...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 9 huhti, 20:08, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > Could you please tell me _WHY_ you think my approach is > > > > > a dead end? Based on your own claim, you never dug into > > > > > the code I sent. > > > > > (1) Presenting code only serves to obfuscate the underlying method. > > > > If you want to present an algorithm then do so. > > > > Please advice about _HOW_. I've already tried my best. > > > Yes. Which is why I presented the analogy with medicine. > > It is pointless for someone without the requisite knowledge > > to try to invent a new surgical procedure. Your reply here > > shows that you lack the basic knowledge to do what you are > > trying to do. > > Ad hominem usually indicates lack of material arguments. > > But hey, I'm not doing this for you, sir. You've taught me > a lot. Not about math, but about math community! What I said was not an ad hominem attack. It was a simple statement of fact: You do not know enough mathematics to do what you are trying to do. Another hallmark of a crank is that they are not even aware of what it is that they don't know. |