Prev: Considering discrete logs
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PAisConsistent (EASY PROOF)
From: JSH on 30 Jun 2010 23:26
On Jun 30, 7:38 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 10:06 PM, JSH wrote:
>
> > However, even at that stage it actually shows how with m=65537,
> > factoring a number into only 4 factors can give an answer, as the
> > algebra simply eliminates 65537-4 factors, by canceling them out.
>
> > Does any other method known?
>
> A number on the order of 1000 bits can have a prime factorization of at
> most around 1000 non-unitary factors (counting multiplicity). You're
> eliminating around 65000 factors which are all 1. Somehow, I don't
> consider that terribly impressive.
>
> > The problem is simple, if it could handle that size then it could
> > handle sizes that are militarily significant.
>
> > The mathematics already given shows that is true.
>
> I haven't seen a proof that the algorithm will give a correct output
> (i.e., halt with the correct answer) for all inputs. For the sake of
> simplicity, let's assume that it does, and that the number of numbers to
> attempt to factor is O(N).
>
> Even if your algorithm works for all inputs, that doesn't still allow
> you to claim an affirmative answer. The problem, as has been repeatedly
> mentioned, is that you would need to do so more quickly than existing
> algorithms. In the best case (namely, all other operations are O(1)),
> the runtime of your algorithm is O(N). An algorithm that is O(sqrt(N))
> is already known.
>
> As for practical demonstration, preliminary tests seem to show that the
> speed of the algorithm is on the order of "not fast." That means that
> for practical purposes, your algorithm is useless.
>
> > So the program able to do that if it fell into foreign hands could
> > maybe crack US military encryption.
>
> > Would you write that program?  Say, to prove a point to Usenet
> > audiences?
>
> Actually, yes. <deleted>

No, not if it DID not work, if it did.

My posting on Usenet in and of itself shows I don't have a program
that could demonstrate what is requested, as why bother posting here
if I did?

Obviously for me to start talking about it, I'd already found the idea
didn't just blow things away.


James Harris
From: Tim Little on 1 Jul 2010 00:14
On 2010-07-01, JSH <jstevh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> However, even at that stage it actually shows how with m=65537,
> factoring a number into only 4 factors can give an answer, as the
> algebra simply eliminates 65537-4 factors, by canceling them out.
> Does any other method known?

Much better than that. With current techniques, the ability to find
even *one* nontrivial factor allows tackling arbitrarily large m
without any guessing whatsoever.


> The problem is simple, if it could handle that size then it could
> handle sizes that are militarily significant. The mathematics
> already given shows that is true.

No, it does not. All the mathematics shows is that if you can guess
the right numbers, you will find a solution. Your mathematics says
nothing about how many guesses you might need to make, based on the
sizes of the numbers involved.

This is exactly the same trap you have fallen into every single time.
You confuse "a solution exists" with "I can write a program to
quickly find that solution no matter how large the numbers are".


> So the program able to do that if it fell into foreign hands could
> maybe crack US military encryption. Would you write that program?

Not that it is relevant to the mathematics, but yes I would. I would
also publish it widely.


> With it, I wouldn't have to say a word to any of you, I could simply
> sell it for millions to any nation on this planet.

So you're saying that it's not basic research at all, it's discarded
research trumpeted along with claims that you already knew were false.

I'm sure in your own mental world that makes you look so much better
than being simply mistaken. To the rest of us, it looks like an ego
so desperate to avoid admitting error that you'd rather look like
lying slime.


- Tim
From: Mark Murray on 1 Jul 2010 03:20
On 01/07/2010 03:00, JSH wrote:
>> Why don't you read a little?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Logarithm
>> ... then go to the "Comparison with Integer Factorization" section
>> and look at the third bullet point.
>
> I had already read it.

Then you didn't understand it. You certainly didn't make the
complexity connection.

>> Don't believe that? go to a search engine (any will do)
>> and enter "discrete logarithm factorization" (without the quotes)
>> to see how well understood this area is.
>
> I've done that search already.

So you must know that the connection between discrete logarithms and
factoring is both well known and well studied, contrary to your
numerous claims.

This is not an innovation of yours; all you are doing is a
presentation of a well-understood study area and attempting to
claim credit. I'll put this down to a combination of ignorance
and hubris. Ignorance, because you needed to be shown the connection
between your original announcement and modular exponentiation (and
again for discrete logarithms). Hubris, because of your _usual_
grandiose claims based on 1 or 2 "cherry-picked", trivial examples,
with a hasty generalisation substituting for a conclusion.

Your resistance to learning is staggering.

M
--
Mark "No Nickname" Murray
Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: master1729 on 1 Jul 2010 03:19
Mark Murray wrote :

> On 01/07/2010 03:00, JSH wrote:
> >> Why don't you read a little?
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Logarithm
> >> ... then go to the "Comparison with Integer
> Factorization" section
> >> and look at the third bullet point.
> >
> > I had already read it.
>
> Then you didn't understand it. You certainly didn't
> make the
> complexity connection.
>
> >> Don't believe that? go to a search engine (any
> will do)
> >> and enter "discrete logarithm factorization"
> (without the quotes)
> >> to see how well understood this area is.
> >
> > I've done that search already.
>
> So you must know that the connection between discrete
> logarithms and
> factoring is both well known and well studied,
> contrary to your
> numerous claims.
>
> This is not an innovation of yours; all you are doing
> is a
> presentation of a well-understood study area and
> attempting to
> claim credit. I'll put this down to a combination of
> ignorance
> and hubris. Ignorance, because you needed to be shown
> the connection
> between your original announcement and modular
> exponentiation (and
> again for discrete logarithms). Hubris, because of
> your _usual_
> grandiose claims based on 1 or 2 "cherry-picked",
> trivial examples,
> with a hasty generalisation substituting for a
> conclusion.
>
> Your resistance to learning is staggering.
>
> M
> --
> Mark "No Nickname" Murray
> Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.

i dont think you are fair here.

its like , sure the connection to factoring is given.

it is said that it is connected.

but it is not even explained !

while james has a method and that method is not even on that page.

so james has an example , and the page just mentions a non-described connection.

so basicly james got a 8/10 and the wiki 3/10 concerning the relation to factoring.

hell , perhaps the wiki should give a link to james method to be a better page.

keep in mind that james method is deterministic and nonrandom unlike most others.

together with my ' advice from the master ' given yesterday the method works pretty well sometimes...

regards

tommy1729
From: Pubkeybreaker on 1 Jul 2010 07:50
On Jun 29, 11:35 pm, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
a HUGE issue.  So far the problem has been intractable.
>
> Human beings seem to love misery.  I'm not sure why.  But make no
> mistake, the human animal often works very hard to NOT solve its
> problems, preferring often instead to whine about them, but refusing
> to solve them.
>
> That may be built into the human genome.  The reasons are complex.
>
> James Harris

When are you going to tell us the year you graduated from
Vanderbilt???

Why won't Vanderbilt confirm that a James S. Harris got a degree in
physics from them?

Why do you keep ignoring these questions?

I think you are lying when you claim a degree in physics from
Vanderbilt. In my home state falsely claiming to have a degree
is a crime.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Considering discrete logs
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PAisConsistent (EASY PROOF)