Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: fortune.bruce on 12 Apr 2008 15:55 On Apr 11, 6:49 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > In article > <c0ebbd99-7de9-4ab9-be83-72b38b5b9...(a)c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > > > fortune.br...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Pubkeybreaker is Robert Silverman, also known as Bob Silverman, the > > "Prince of Primes". > > > Robert did seminal work with RSA Labs in the study of the math of > > public keys and both trying to break them and make them safer/ > > stronger. I reckon that may be the reason for his handle, but I'm > > guessing. > > > Robert Silverman is a true math legend. He has likely published more > > important math papers than the amount of years you've been alive. He > > has worked for decades and produced at the highest levels of math and > > crypto in the trenches of real work and discovery in this world. > > > You really should get your Google on and see what I'm talking about, > > and when you do you will also see that Bob (Pubkeybreaker) has a > > record of not suffering fools easily. > > > It is also very safe to say that he (Pubkeybreaker) has forgotten more > > about the subject you are on than you will ever know. > > > I recommend you both show some respect and really try hard to see his > > point. > > None of the above, though, is inconsistent with being a jerk. > > -- > --Tim Smith I would argue that it is inconsistent, if one is capable of taking the above comments in the context of this thread. To not do so, is to sell Pubkeybreaker short, and he deserves much better. Bruce
From: Tim Smith on 12 Apr 2008 16:20 In article <66bfkpF2jl0h3U1(a)mid.individual.net>, "S.C.Sprong" <scsprong(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. Silverman's corrections are basically just a declaration that he knows more (true), that Lankinen's approach is completely worthless (true from the point of view of advancing mathematics, not true from the point of view of sparking someone's interest in learning more about math), that Lankinen should learn more (true). 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? > Question: > - What is the use of indiscriminately praising Lankinen and thus encouraging > him to waste more time? The longer this goes on the more painful his fall > will be. You call that friendly? I call that heartless and evil. Who has indiscriminately praised him? As for wasting time, quite a few mathematicians I've known started out wasting time that way. Finding some area of math that interested them, and then working out some elementary aspects on their own, was the thing that got them seriously interested in math. The difference is they then encountered teachers and mathematicians who guided them toward useful literature, and provided encouragement, rather than encountering mathematicians who just told them that they were worthless and wasting their time. The only thing Lankinen has done wrong here is, perhaps, posting in the wrong groups. Being smart does not mean one has to be a jerk to beginners. In college, I wrote to Adleman with some questions about the newly announced Adleman-Pomerance-Rumely primality test. My questions were probably stupid, but he sent back a preprint of their upcoming paper, and other references that were very helpful. In high school, my math teacher would occasionally have one of his old college professors come in and give a guest lecture on some interesting topic. He had me show the professor something I was playing around with--something Silverman would no doubt call a waste of time, as it was something well known and my approach was worse than the well known approach. The professor (Gerald Alexanderson) didn't tell me I was wasting my time. He loaned me a book that covered whatever it was I was playing with, at a level a little above what I could understand, but not so far above that I wouldn't be able to figure it out with work. -- --Tim Smith
From: Risto Lankinen on 12 Apr 2008 16:51 On 12 huhti, 13:02, "S.C.Sprong" <scspr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > - What is the use of indiscriminately praising Lankinen and thus encouraging > him to waste more time? The longer this goes on the more painful his fall > will be. You call that friendly? I call that heartless and evil. That won't hurt me, I have a day job & hefty savings. 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. Alas, I figure no one will until the Dole man nods :-( - Risto -
From: tchow on 12 Apr 2008 18:01 In article <fd30cce9-7fcb-427c-9131-c20659d85de1(a)y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, JSH <jstevh(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. 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 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. 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? -- Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
From: S.C.Sprong on 12 Apr 2008 18:09
In sci.math Tim Smith <reply_in_group(a)mouse-potato.com> wrote: > "S.C.Sprong" <scsprong(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 |