Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PrimeNumbers] Residual Factorization Extension

Expand Messages
  • Décio Luiz Gazzoni Filho
    ... Hash: SHA1 ... If you mean a PowerPoint presentation that s linked on that site, the same one you mentioned a few months ago, I indeed went to the trouble
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: SHA1

      On Monday 05 January 2004 02:31, Milton Brown wrote:
      > Mr. Filho:
      >
      > I am sorry that you consider my method a delusion.
      >
      > Perhaps you are not able to reproduce the mathematics
      > Described in www.csulb.edu/~mbrown10.

      If you mean a PowerPoint presentation that's linked on that site, the same one
      you mentioned a few months ago, I indeed went to the trouble of opening it in
      another computer (since I refuse to install software on my machine which
      interoperates with Microsoft Office), only to see that I had indeed wasted my
      time. But I may check back in case there's anything new. Not holding my
      breath though.

      > If you have indeed read it and are having trouble,
      > I will be glad to help. These numbers are reproducible
      > And not a delusion.
      >
      > I fail to see how you could produce better numbers than RSA's.
      > Please inform me and others if you can.

      I do not claim to produce better numbers than RSA, as you can check by reading
      my post again. I just want to see your method applied on:
      1. a number which you don't know the factors (which you did when you published
      the results for RSA-576)
      2. a number which I can readily verify the result, since in the few years
      it'll take to factor RSA-640, I'll have already lost track of your email
      containing the purported beginning digits of the factors.

      I don't see what's so hard about it. I mean, your method sounds so simple you
      could have just applied it to my composite instead of crafting this reply
      debating the need to do so. Not to mention that you'd have someone to code
      this algorithm for you in retribution, as I promised. So your reluctance here
      makes it pretty clear that you were bluffing.

      > Perhaps the moderator should already be operating here.

      I agree. One of them has already manifested himself.

      Décio
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

      iD8DBQE/+PUyFXvAfvngkOIRAh9yAJ4vUbhswTH/Fp2H4eS+Z6COmXaBwwCeJHV4
      NZ9seu4Mf88aIemdVOpJbJU=
      =Aht6
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    • Alan Eliasen
      I ll have to admit that I even tried to implement Mr. Brown s algorithm, to torture-test the primality-checking routines in my programming language Frink ,
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I'll have to admit that I even tried to implement Mr. Brown's
        algorithm, to torture-test the primality-checking routines in my
        programming language "Frink", http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/
        (although I'll certainly admit that the description given in his
        PowerPoint presentation does not give enough information to be usable to
        anyone. The mention of the "Nyquist Criterion" is, I believe,
        intentionally vague. I understand both the Nyquist stability criteria,
        and the Nyquist sampling criteria, and those who understand them will
        see, readily, that this mention is insufficient and inappropriate.)

        He also sent me a spreadsheet that just had unexplained numbers in
        it, all entered by hand; there was no equation in the entire thing, and
        was thus useless.

        In any case, even though the description was clearly insufficient, I
        gave him the benefit of the doubt and tried many different
        interpretations of the vague bits.

        For example, it's unclear what "minimums of R" means, so I tried all
        of the following:

        * Minimum value of R found in a range
        * Minimum absolute value of R
        * Minimum sum of values of R
        * Minimum sum of absolute values of R
        * Minimum RMS sum of values of R

        In addition, since this is obvious *incredibly* sensitive to the
        exact numbers you sample, I tried lots of sampling rates and sampling
        offsets, including very high sampling rates which should exceed any
        interpretation of the Nyquist sampling criterion, if indeed that is what
        was meant. I tried lots of "bin" sizes for the sums and averages. I
        also tried scaling the minima along with their magnitudes (the values of
        R tend to get larger as you sample larger numbers, of course.)

        I worked with numbers of which I knew the factors, and, to make a
        long story short, I see absolutely no evidence that the algorithm, as
        presented, has any utility. Even if you know the exact factors, and try
        really hard to make it fit, you can't even force the algorithm to point
        to the right places, other than what would be expected by pure
        probabilities. If you have 10 bins, 1/10 of the time you'll sample
        numbers that drop it in the right bin. I don't see that as strong evidence.

        Rather, it became quite clear that the minima found, even with the
        smoothing produced by summing, has a lot of stochastic variation which
        is directly due to the particular sample points that you chose.

        It is easy to see, therefore, that _post facto_, one could choose a
        set of sample points that "proved" this algorithm true if you already
        knew the factors of a number. I will absolutely not accept any post
        facto evidence as evidence that this algorithm works, especially when
        work is not shown.

        I agree that Décio's test is fair, acceptable, and should well be
        within the reach of Mr. Brown's algorithm if it works as claimed. So,
        please, either provide the digits, or go back to the drawing board, and
        stop making further unsubstantiated claims. I would suggest that it is
        not a worthwhile use of one's time to attempt to reproduce this
        algorithm unless Mr. Brown provides the digits requested (unless you're
        writing a programming language that you're torture-testing. :) )

        If, indeed, he provides the factors, I will gladly help code the
        algorithms. Seems like pretty safe money.

        --
        Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a
        eliasen@... | position he did not reason himself
        http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place."
        | --Jonathan Swift
      • Alan Eliasen
        Oh, and the fact that if you happen to sample dead-on a factor, that it doesn t produce a minimum, is exceptionally telling. -- Alan Eliasen |
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh, and the fact that if you happen to sample dead-on a factor, that
          it doesn't produce a minimum, is exceptionally telling.

          --
          Alan Eliasen | "You cannot reason a person out of a
          eliasen@... | position he did not reason himself
          http://futureboy.homeip.net/ | into in the first place."
          | --Jonathan Swift
        • grostoon
          Hi all and happy new year, I too have discovered an amazing algorithm that factorizes a composite integer N in O(log(log(Pmax))^1/2) where Pmax is the largest
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi all and happy new year,

            I too have discovered an amazing algorithm that factorizes a
            composite integer N in O(log(log(Pmax))^1/2) where Pmax is the
            largest prime factor of N !!!

            I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition but this
            margin is too narrow to contain it...

            ;-)

            Jean-Louis.




            --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Milton Brown" <miltbrown@e...>
            wrote:
            > Happy New Year to All:
            >
            > Based on my Residual Factorization Method described in
            >
            > www.csulb.edu/~mbrown10
            >
            > I can computer the first digits of RSA factors.
            >
            > I would like to obtain a program like ECM which will use these
            > digits to complete the factorization.
            >
            > Does anyone have such a program?
            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > Milton L. Brown
            > miltbrown@e...
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.