JSH: But it just amazes me
in [Cryptography]
|
From: Chris McDonald on 9 Nov 2009 22:55 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: <hundreds-of-lines-snipped-because-James-is-unable-to-do-so> >On Nov 9, 5:48=A0pm, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> I tried your method and had to use j =3D 2 and f1 (or f2 ) =3D 2 to >> get anything to work - I could find the answers, but they were >> not linked to both factors of the modulus in the way your >> blog example shows. >Good one! Yuck I'm having problems with it myself. Well THAT is why >I put these things out on Usenet, just in case someone can find a >problem before I call in the cavalry. >I'll keep working at this one to see if I can get it to work. But didn't you previously *prove* that you method would work? Hadn't you already *solved* this problem for the world? I cannot possibly fathom how it could now be flawed? -- Chris.
From: JSH on 9 Nov 2009 23:14 On Nov 9, 7:55 pm, Chris McDonald <ch...(a)csse.uwa.edu.au> wrote: > JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > <hundreds-of-lines-snipped-because-James-is-unable-to-do-so> > > >On Nov 9, 5:48=A0pm, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >> I tried your method and had to use j =3D 2 and f1 (or f2 ) =3D 2 to > >> get anything to work - I could find the answers, but they were > >> not linked to both factors of the modulus in the way your > >> blog example shows. > >Good one! Yuck I'm having problems with it myself. Well THAT is why > >I put these things out on Usenet, just in case someone can find a > >problem before I call in the cavalry. > >I'll keep working at this one to see if I can get it to work. > > But didn't you previously *prove* that you method would work? The method DOES work. The question is, how well? > Hadn't you already *solved* this problem for the world? Well doubt is why I post on Usenet. > I cannot possibly fathom how it could now be flawed? That's where it's fun. James Harris
From: JSH on 9 Nov 2009 23:46 On Nov 9, 8:23 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 5:48 pm, Enrico <ungerne...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 9, 6:18 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 9, 4:21 pm, Dann Corbit <dcor...(a)connx.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <661918fe-72e2-4b17-8073-ed52b2fdd0d4 > > > > @f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, jst...(a)gmail.com says... > > > > > > I figured out years ago when I FINALLY had major mathematical finds > > > > > that there were these people in the mathematical field who didn't give > > > > > a damn. They didn't care about the truth, so what were they doing > > > > > there? > > > > > > Working it out over the years I've determined that for some people the > > > > > dream of royalty did not die with the transition to democratic > > > > > societies around the world, so they've simply worked to set up shop > > > > > where they can chase that dream. > > > > > > And academia is a place that lets them play at their dreams of being > > > > > royalty. > > > > > > In a class society the king does not have to be the best at anything. > > > > > He is simply the king. > > > > > > So for these people in setting themselves up as wannabe royalty, merit > > > > > does not matter. > > > > > > They don't care if you're right or wrong if you're someone they've de- > > > > > classed in their minds! > > > > > > And you can see how far they can go with what is increasingly looking > > > > > like a solution to the factoring problem. > > > > > > How hard to check? > > > > > > For major researchers, oh, minutes, maybe a few hours to program it > > > > > and watch it go, and then there should be calls to colleagues and > > > > > excited discussion, and oh yeah, notifying of security experts and > > > > > intelligence services around the world. > > > > > > But instead there is a dragging of the feet by people who don't want > > > > > to let go. > > > > > > I mentioned on sci.physics that the world may decide to 0 fund > > > > > academia and I'm increasingly thinking that will happen as the modern > > > > > academic world seems to attract medieval thinking, and in the medieval > > > > > world it was not about truth or merit, but about class. > > > > > > There has to be some way to break that out of academia so that people > > > > > within academic walls do not feel free to dismiss results that they > > > > > don't like. > > > > > > My suggestion is 0 funding. If the money is taken away then only the > > > > > best people will still remain as like me, they will find a way. > > > > > > The BEST people do not need handouts or what I call white collar > > > > > welfare. > > > > > Your FLT solution was trounced as piddle, each and every time you tried > > > > to revive it. > > > > Actually I isolated out a key part of the argument, wrote a paper and > > > submitted it to a mathematical journal which published it until some > > > sci.math posters mounted an email campaign against my paper which > > > spooked the editors who withdrew it against my wishes:http://www.emis..de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html > > > > So BY THE RULES that part of the argument was formally peer reviewed > > > and published, though I'd guess you dismiss publication in those > > > circumstances? > > > > The journal later keeled over and died, but EMIS keeps its archives > > > up:http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/ > > > > They also resurrected my paper though I don't bother linking to it, as > > > I've simplified and advanced the argument. You can simply do a search > > > in Google on: algebraic integer entanglement > > > > > You "Solution to factoring" is not more efficient than the Sieve of > > > > Eratosthenes to form an exhaustive list or trial division of possible > > > > factors up to the square root of N. Since these are literally two of > > > > <deleted> > > > > Then no worries!!! > > > > It just AMAZES me how Usenet posters can take the most dramatic things > > > and act like they're nothing. > > > > The actual story which you didn't bother to tell is so much more > > > interesting, as, like, an ENTIRE mathematical journal blew up, went up > > > in flames!!! Died. Went six feet under. > > > > ENDED ITS EXISTENCE. > > > > Isn't that a lot more interesting than what you claimed? > > > > Math people are just blocking, and they destroyed one of their own > > > journals as part of that blocking. > > > > So I went to the factoring problem. > > > > I wonder if there are mathematicians around the world waiting, hoping, > > > wondering if they can still get away with the blocking, even with a > > > way to factor with quadratic residues modulo N. > > > > I'm wondering as well. Maybe they can. > > > > If so, then in a year I'll just celebrate another belated anniversary > > > of this result. > > > > There isn't much hope. If these bastards could destroy a math journal > > > like NOTHING, and it not matter, then what can't they do? > > > > James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > ================================================= > > > Getting back to your claim of a very simple way to solve quadratic > > residues modulo an odd number N, coprime to 3. > > > Can you show how your method works to solve X^2 = 2 mod 161 > > using the factors of 161 (which are 7 and 23) ? > > > I tried your method and had to use j = 2 and f1 (or f2 ) = 2 to > > get anything to work - I could find the answers, but they were > > not linked to both factors of the modulus in the way your > > blog example shows. > > Yeah, I worked backwards knowing that 7 and 23 are factors, and it > works at: > > j = 111, f_1 = 143, and f_2 = 125 > > T = 17875 > > And that is HORRIBLE, as it's at 55 iterations. > > At lesser values it is giving you the answer for 7 but not 23, and 23 > but not 7, until you reach that threshold. > > Nasty example. Cool!!! The solving quadratic residues mod p works > like always but here the probabilities are clearly not about 50% with > the mod N. Maybe I tried to jump from prime to composites plus primes > too hastily, eh? > > Of course I could toss the alternate equations at it, and see what > happens: > > T = 10q mod N > > and > > k = 19^{-1}(3(f_1 + f_2)) mod N > > There are an infinity of these relations. I've just talked first > about the first one, and that is the second one. There are an > infinity more. Correction, not the second one, the third one. I skipped the second one but don't remember why as I did it about a year ago. Works with T = 1147, f_1 = 31, f_2 = 37, gives k = 87. 87^2 = 2 mod 161 > I wonder if it shifts the probabilities with composites. With N a > prime I don't think it matters. Well that's one thing with my research--usually lots of variables available. Here the variable I'm shifting is one I call alpha, or 'a' in posts. Initial relation is with a=1, which had fits with N = 161, and q = 2. Here a=3, handles it with the second T, but still took a while because the probability is per factorization, and the first T had 4 non- trivial factorizations. Ok. That was for curiosity. I'm back to pondering why a=1, did so horribly. Seems I don't have the probabilities right here, except for the prime case. Composites have proven to be trickier than just assuming the same numbers as for primes, which yes, is expected, but I was hoping... Interesting. James Harris
From: Noob on 10 Nov 2009 04:25 JSH wrote: > Actually I isolated out a key part of the argument, wrote a paper and > submitted it to a mathematical journal which published it until some > sci.math posters mounted an email campaign against my paper which > spooked the editors who withdrew it against my wishes: > http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/vol2-03.html cf. http://dl.free.fr/gMojEGqSw/jsh.pdf > So BY THE RULES that part of the argument was formally peer reviewed You can't be sure your paper actually was formally peer reviewed. Is the review process completely anonymous, or are the reviewers' names disclosed at some point? > The journal later keeled over and died, but EMIS keeps its archives > up: > http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/ > > They also resurrected my paper though I don't bother linking to it, as > I've simplified and advanced the argument. You can simply do a search > in Google on: algebraic integer entanglement You should write a new paper, and submit it to SWJPAM. > It just AMAZES me how Usenet posters can take the most dramatic things > and act like they're nothing. As always, you are ever so easily amazed.
From: Bruce Stephens on 10 Nov 2009 04:57
JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: [...] > Good one! Yuck I'm having problems with it myself. Well THAT is why > I put these things out on Usenet, just in case someone can find a > problem before I call in the cavalry. It feels like just a couple of days since you said <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.crypt/msg/0d8cfe4849ffb4ba>: >> You're describing basic research. In getting to the latest results I >> had LOTS of missteps and failures. >> >> [...] >> >> That is a HIGHLY specific result and looks like something that might >> come from years of basic research, with lots of failures and >> missteps. Of course, you could just try coding it and see if it works. [...] |