JSH: Some history
in [Math]
|
Prev: nearness to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality Chapter 4, Missing Mass #227 Atom Totality
Next: 3SAT - Super Resolution
From: Mark Murray on 22 Jul 2010 03:34 On 22/07/2010 01:03, JSH wrote: >>> And since the k^2 = q mod p result that lead to the general result is >>> two years old, if there is anything then I'd guess it's well >>> established by now with people who haven't told anyone. If not, no >>> worries. >> >> It's a lot older than that, and well known. No secrets there, no >> danger. > > I'm trying to let this drop, but you're making false statements. > > Give a technique for finding m, when k^m = q mod N, with k, q and N > known, by integer factorization in reply or concede you made a false > statement. General Number Field Seive, normally used for factorisation, is adapted to solve discrete logarithms. Shor's algorithm also. > There is no accepted method for doing that, while my approach isn't > being accepted. The connection between factorisation and discrete logarithms is well known. "Your" method is not accepted as new. That fact that you still cannot see this after it has been pointed out out in detail is an indication of willful ignorance on your part. > If there is, demonstrate it with k^m = 52 mod 103. Trivial: 52^1 \equiv 52 mod 103. I guess you wanted a set "k" rather than allowing me a choice? > Show your work to find m. Coding up a GNFS is not a trivial task, and I'm not going to do it only to have you either ignore the result or call me a liar. Shor's algorithm is unavailable to be because I don't have a quantum computer, and I'm not going to waste the time writing a simulator just to have you dismiss the result. >>> But if there are people out there who have that result fully developed >>> and figured out the k^m = q mod N result two years ago, then maybe I >>> should just leave them alone, you know? >> >> Right (do you realise that this is what folks have been saying to you >> since you picked up this topic?) > > You're insane. > > But to prove it I have to give you a challenge which you will fail, > which means I'm STILL talking on this topic for one day more than I > wished just to handle one insane person. Thats a funny way of "walking away", but anyway. Impossible challenges are easy in your case. You just deny or ignore the result. >>> I'm not a cop. I'm not a secret service. Governments have that job >>> of protection, not me. >> >> Correct. Not relevant. > > It is, because you're spreading falsehoods. There WAS no way known to > find the discrete log by integer factorization before my research > path, and governments SHOULD care but there is silence meaning our > world is not behaving correctly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_logarithms Follow the "number field seive" under "Algorithms". Shor's algorithm is there as well. When I called you out on using a lousy factoring algorithm, you claimed it didn't matter as ANY algorithm would do, the novelty being the connection between discrete logarithms and factoring. Above are two examples of prior art that show your claim to be incorrect. > Now fall flat on your face with my request for a solution to m, say > something irrelevant in reply to justify your complete failure, and > then come back and chortle victory like you know you'll do no matter > what. Just get it over with, but then I WILL step away, as this > thread should reflect both my prediction and your response letting me > walk away as I wish. Do the walking away NOW before you make any more of a fool of yourself. M -- Mark "No Nickname" Murray Notable nebbish, extreme generalist.
From: JSH on 22 Jul 2010 10:13 On Jul 21, 9:22 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-07-22, JSH <jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Give a technique for finding m, when k^m = q mod N, with k, q and N > > known, by integer factorization in reply > > Sure. Since you appear to ignore almost all links that don't go to > Wikipedia or Mathworld, try: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_calculus_algorithm > and > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohlig-Hellman_algorithm > > Both of these involve factorizations to solve the discrete log > problem. Feel free to ask if you don't understand anything there. > > Note that these methods are massive overkill for the trivial problems > you post here. It would be like using the Space Shuttle to go next > door instead of into space. They are useful for computer solution of > much bigger problems. > > There is also a website with Java applet and source code that solves > discrete logarithms using the Pohlig-Hellman algorithm: > > http://www.alpertron.com.ar/DILOG.HTM > > Not that you will look at it, as you are no doubt scared of what you > might find there. I mention it only since other people reading this > thread might be interested. > > > If there is, demonstrate it with k^m = 52 mod 103. > > You haven't specified k, so m can be just about anything. Feel free > to provide a value of k though. > > - Tim Sorry, that should be 2^m = 52 mod 103. I was thinking 2, but put k. The answer is 101. Solve for m using integer factorization, and show your work. James Harris
From: JSH on 22 Jul 2010 10:15 On Jul 22, 12:34 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 22/07/2010 01:03, JSH wrote: > > >>> And since the k^2 = q mod p result that lead to the general result is > >>> two years old, if there is anything then I'd guess it's well > >>> established by now with people who haven't told anyone. If not, no > >>> worries. > > >> It's a lot older than that, and well known. No secrets there, no > >> danger. > > > I'm trying to let this drop, but you're making false statements. > > > Give a technique for finding m, when k^m = q mod N, with k, q and N > > known, by integer factorization in reply or concede you made a false > > statement. > > General Number Field Seive, normally used for factorisation, is adapted > to solve discrete logarithms. Shor's algorithm also. > > > There is no accepted method for doing that, while my approach isn't > > being accepted. > > The connection between factorisation and discrete logarithms is well > known. "Your" method is not accepted as new. That fact that you still > cannot see this after it has been pointed out out in detail is an > indication of willful ignorance on your part. > > > If there is, demonstrate it with k^m = 52 mod 103. > > Trivial: 52^1 \equiv 52 mod 103. I guess you wanted a set "k" > rather than allowing me a choice? I meant 2^m = 52 mod 103, but typed "k", so it's a typo--guess from typing k^m = q mod N so many times it became a habit to put k--and the answer is 101. Solve for m, where 2^m = 52 mod 103 using integer factorization and show your work. The answer is m = 101. James Harris
From: Mark Murray on 22 Jul 2010 10:26 On 07/22/10 15:13, JSH wrote: >> >>> If there is, demonstrate it with k^m = 52 mod 103. >> >> You haven't specified k, so m can be just about anything. Feel free >> to provide a value of k though. >> >> - Tim > > Sorry, that should be 2^m = 52 mod 103. > > I was thinking 2, but put k. The answer is 101. Solve for m using > integer factorization, and show your work. You are now fixated on getting folks to calculate something that is known. The problem is that your claim to be the discoverer of the link between discrete logarithms and factoring is a false claim. The above exercise does nothing except show an instance of this being true. Address this: > On Jul 21, 9:22 pm, Tim Little<t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: >> On 2010-07-22, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Give a technique for finding m, when k^m = q mod N, with k, q and N >>> known, by integer factorization in reply >> >> Sure. Since you appear to ignore almost all links that don't go to >> Wikipedia or Mathworld, try: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_calculus_algorithm >> and >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohlig-Hellman_algorithm >> >> Both of these involve factorizations to solve the discrete log >> problem. Feel free to ask if you don't understand anything there. >> >> Note that these methods are massive overkill for the trivial problems >> you post here. It would be like using the Space Shuttle to go next >> door instead of into space. They are useful for computer solution of >> much bigger problems. >> >> There is also a website with Java applet and source code that solves >> discrete logarithms using the Pohlig-Hellman algorithm: >> >> http://www.alpertron.com.ar/DILOG.HTM >> >> Not that you will look at it, as you are no doubt scared of what you >> might find there. I mention it only since other people reading this >> thread might be interested. M
From: JSH on 22 Jul 2010 10:31
On Jul 22, 7:26 am, Mark Murray <w.h.o...(a)example.com> wrote: > On 07/22/10 15:13, JSH wrote: > > > > >>> If there is, demonstrate it with k^m = 52 mod 103. > > >> You haven't specified k, so m can be just about anything. Feel free > >> to provide a value of k though. > > >> - Tim > > > Sorry, that should be 2^m = 52 mod 103. > > > I was thinking 2, but put k. The answer is 101. Solve for m using > > integer factorization, and show your work. > > You are now fixated on getting folks to calculate something that is > known. Yup, to demonstrate solving for m, with integer factorization. > The problem is that your claim to be the discoverer of the link > between discrete logarithms and factoring is a false claim. The > above exercise does nothing except show an instance of this being > true. > > Address this: > > > On Jul 21, 9:22 pm, Tim Little<t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > >> On 2010-07-22, JSH<jst...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Give a technique for finding m, when k^m = q mod N, with k, q and N > >>> known, by integer factorization in reply > >> > >> Sure. Since you appear to ignore almost all links that don't go to > >> Wikipedia or Mathworld, try: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_calculus_algorithm > >> and > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohlig-Hellman_algorithm > >> > >> Both of these involve factorizations to solve the discrete log > >> problem. Feel free to ask if you don't understand anything there.. > >> > >> Note that these methods are massive overkill for the trivial problems > >> you post here. It would be like using the Space Shuttle to go next > >> door instead of into space. They are useful for computer solution of > >> much bigger problems. > >> > >> There is also a website with Java applet and source code that solves > >> discrete logarithms using the Pohlig-Hellman algorithm: > >> > >> http://www.alpertron.com.ar/DILOG.HTM > >> > >> Not that you will look at it, as you are no doubt scared of what you > >> might find there. I mention it only since other people reading this > >> thread might be interested. > > M Fine. Use WHATEVER YOU WANT, and solve for m, when 2^m = 52 mod 103. SHOW YOUR WORK. It's a math thing. That is a challenge math people understand. SHOW YOUR WORK. Chatter is not enough here. DO THE PROBLEM OR ADMIT YOU CANNOT. James Harris |