JSH: But it just amazes me
in [Cryptography]
|
From: JSH on 10 Nov 2009 10:23 On Nov 10, 1:57 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...(a)cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote: > JSH <jst...(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. The poster Enrico gave a false alarm. He said he couldn't get the answer for q=2, N = 161 = 7(23) using my approach. I take such claims seriously. When I didn't get an answer quickly, I naturally got worried, so posted the same. > >> [...] > > >> 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. Enrico just had problems. I DID find the answer using my approach but further out than I'd like which made me wonder about the probability that I've said is associated with it. But it IS a probabilistic approach yet I don't want to use that to ignore surprisingly bad outcomes. What amazes me is how giddy people like you clearly get with even the hint that I'm wrong versus wishing that someone, anyone, would find something new and interesting. So ONE LITTLE appearance of an issue and you're stomping and shouting and hollering with glee. But the method worked. It's actually a bit scarier now as there is increasing evidence that it is actually is a valid approach. James Harris
From: rossum on 10 Nov 2009 13:04 On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:23:43 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Enrico just had problems. I DID find the answer using my approach but >further out than I'd like which made me wonder about the probability >that I've said is associated with it. Why did you have to wonder James? Could it be that you just tried your method on a couple of small examples and thought that it looked as if the probability was about 50% without actually checking on enough examples to be sure? >But it IS a probabilistic approach yet I don't want to use that >to ignore surprisingly bad outcomes. Then you need to test it over a wide range of values and actually see what probability you get. What results do you get from testing it on 50,000 values in the range 10,000 to 2,000,000 for example? > >What amazes me is how giddy people like you clearly get with even the >hint that I'm wrong versus wishing that someone, anyone, would find >something new and interesting. What amazes us James is that you claim such immense importance for results that you have obviously spent all of five minutes checking. We know from previous experience that your initial version of anything is almost certain to have errors in it; that has been the case for as long as I have been following your work. You have cried "wolf" a great many times, only to say "Whoops, I found a mistake." > >So ONE LITTLE appearance of an issue and you're stomping and shouting >and hollering with glee. Because it was you who were stomping and shouting and hollering with glee because you had solved the factoring problem and how we were all going to have to appear before the SCotUS to justify ourselves. You holler at us and we will holler straight back. You are reaping what you sowed earlier James. > >But the method worked. It's actually a bit scarier now as there is >increasing evidence that it is actually is a valid approach. No James. Your method finds a solution, but it finds that solution no faster than existing methods. Speed is of the essence James. We already have plenty of slow solutions; we are now looking for fast solutions. You have not shown that your latest solution is fast. rossum > > >James Harris
From: Bruce Stephens on 10 Nov 2009 13:22 JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> writes: [...] > The poster Enrico gave a false alarm. He said he couldn't get the > answer for q=2, N = 161 = 7(23) using my approach. > > I take such claims seriously. Even when you have a proof? [...] > So ONE LITTLE appearance of an issue and you're stomping and shouting > and hollering with glee. I'm not doing that. I still suggest that if you've got something that works, you should code it. The numbers you're trying by hand are so small you'd have to work quite hard to avoid factoring them. You can wait for other people to code it, I suppose, but that's never worked well for you in the past. > But the method worked. It's actually a bit scarier now as there is > increasing evidence that it is actually is a valid approach. We already have methods that work slowly. We're missing methods that work fast enough that they'll work on larger numbers, and for that you'll either have to do some kind of complexity analysis or you'll have to code it and see if it works.
From: Enrico on 10 Nov 2009 14:03 On Nov 10, 11:04 am, rossum <rossu...(a)coldmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:23:43 -0800 (PST), JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Enrico just had problems. I DID find the answer using my approach but > >further out than I'd like which made me wonder about the probability > >that I've said is associated with it. > > Why did you have to wonder James? Could it be that you just tried > your method on a couple of small examples and thought that it looked > as if the probability was about 50% without actually checking on > enough examples to be sure? > > >But it IS a probabilistic approach yet I don't want to use that > >to ignore surprisingly bad outcomes. > > Then you need to test it over a wide range of values and actually see > what probability you get. What results do you get from testing it on > 50,000 values in the range 10,000 to 2,000,000 for example? > > > > >What amazes me is how giddy people like you clearly get with even the > >hint that I'm wrong versus wishing that someone, anyone, would find > >something new and interesting. > > What amazes us James is that you claim such immense importance for > results that you have obviously spent all of five minutes checking. > We know from previous experience that your initial version of anything > is almost certain to have errors in it; that has been the case for as > long as I have been following your work. You have cried "wolf" a > great many times, only to say "Whoops, I found a mistake." > > > > >So ONE LITTLE appearance of an issue and you're stomping and shouting > >and hollering with glee. > > Because it was you who were stomping and shouting and hollering with > glee because you had solved the factoring problem and how we were all > going to have to appear before the SCotUS to justify ourselves. You > holler at us and we will holler straight back. You are reaping what > you sowed earlier James. > > > > >But the method worked. It's actually a bit scarier now as there is > >increasing evidence that it is actually is a valid approach. > > No James. Your method finds a solution, but it finds that solution no > faster than existing methods. Speed is of the essence James. We > already have plenty of slow solutions; we are now looking for fast > solutions. You have not shown that your latest solution is fast. > > rossum > > > > > > >James Harris- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ==================================================== One thing still missing from James' method is how j is selected. Enrico
From: Lits O'Hate on 10 Nov 2009 18:30
On Nov 9, 11:23 pm, James "Google SWJPAM" Harris wrote: > Beautiful mathematics made to dance for the crowd so that maybe > they'll toss their pennies. Or their cookies. -- "Here with absolute mathematical proofs I know without a doubt that an entire planet is wrong about my ideas." -- James Harris |