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

Cracking RSA: Relationship between prime numbers and quantum theory

Expand Messages
  • Kent Nguyen
    I m actively trying to crack the RSA code. My paper: http://www.mslinux.com/research/cracking_pki/cracking_pki.html tries to link the fundament of quantum
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 31, 2001
      I'm actively trying to crack the RSA code. My paper:

      http://www.mslinux.com/research/cracking_pki/cracking_pki.html

      tries to link the fundament of quantum theory to prime number theory. By
      using quantum theory we know so much about, I can apply the same concept to
      prime number theory.

      Here are my findings:
      1) In quantum theory there exist couplet, triplet, and quadruplet. This is
      called coupling. Very similiar to prime number theory. Prime number exhibit
      such phenonmenum.

      2) The product of a set of prime numbers can represent any integer. Much
      like in quantum theory, electrons quantum state can represent any molecule
      and molecular interaction.

      3) The zeta function postulated by Reimann fits perfectly with themodynamic.

      4) The Heinsberg uncertainity principle is similiar to C1 = P1*P2 where C1
      is a composite number, P1 and P2 are prime numbers. Both relate to one
      another by the uncertainities that lie in the boundary condition. In quantum
      theory, h (Planck's constant) is the boundardy condition. In prime number
      theory C1 is the boundary condition.

      The analogy between the two are so perfect that I think nature is giving us a
      clue what lies in prime number theory will ultimately explain the superstring
      theory and theory of everything.

      Right now I'm trying to find the wavefunction to prime number, but I must
      first find the nth prime number equation. This has made me look at complex
      plane. For example, I tried using Fourier analysis and Netwonian
      approximation to describe nth prime number equation in complex plane. Next I
      will try to look at Reimann equation to see if there is any clue with respect
      to the analysis I've done in complex plane.

      --kent
    • cashogor@yahoo.es
      ... What if it takes P1 iterations of the wavefunction to find P1? Néstor
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 31, 2001
        --- In primenumbers@y..., Kent Nguyen <kent@m...> wrote:
        > I'm actively trying to crack the RSA code. My paper:
        >
        > http://www.mslinux.com/research/cracking_pki/cracking_pki.html

        What if it takes P1 iterations of the wavefunction to find P1?

        Néstor
      • Kent Nguyen
        ... If this is the case, it does not exhibit quantum property. I believe this won t be the case, and will prove it when I find out the wavefunction for prime
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 31, 2001
          On Tuesday 31 July 2001 16:53, cashogor@... wrote:
          > --- In primenumbers@y..., Kent Nguyen <kent@m...> wrote:
          > > I'm actively trying to crack the RSA code. My paper:
          > >
          > > http://www.mslinux.com/research/cracking_pki/cracking_pki.html
          >
          > What if it takes P1 iterations of the wavefunction to find P1?

          If this is the case, it does not exhibit quantum property. I believe this
          won't be the case, and will prove it when I find out the wavefunction for
          prime numbers.

          Here's a paradox, how do you know many times to iterate if you don't know the
          how many times you need to do it?

          One of the postulate in quantum theory states that no two particle can occupy
          the same place at the same time.

          Your question is telling me that you know P1 and you still want to find P1.

          You can however say:
          What if it takes P1 + dP1 iterations of wavefunction to find P1?

          That's an interesting question altogether. Perhaps that's the question I
          need to investigate in my analysis.

          --kent
        • Paul Leyland
          ... Not true in general. It is true for fermions (particles with spin (2i+1)/2) and is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. For bosons (particles with
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
            > One of the postulate in quantum theory states that no two
            > particle can occupy the same place at the same time.

            Not true in general. It is true for fermions (particles with spin
            (2i+1)/2) and is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. For bosons
            (particles with integral spin) particles can, and do, occupy precisely
            the same state at the same time. It's why lasers, superfluids and
            superconductors have such interesting properties.

            I fail to see what any of this has to do with factorization, but it will
            be interesting to see if anything comes from it.


            Paul
          • Aleksey D. Tetyorko
            ... Hi, Kent! I took a look at your paper. As I see it there *is* function C1-- (P1, P2), but existence does not mean fast computability . If C1=P1*P2 and
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
              > > > I'm actively trying to crack the RSA code. My paper:
              > > >
              > > > http://www.mslinux.com/research/cracking_pki/cracking_pki.html
              Hi, Kent!
              I took a look at your paper. As I see it there *is* function
              C1-->(P1, P2), but 'existence' does not mean 'fast
              computability'. If C1=P1*P2 and Pi are odd primes, then we
              can use the following (where sigma(n) is the sum of all the
              divisors of n).

              {sigma(C1)=1+P1+P2+C1
              {C1=P1*P2

              And we have the equation:

              x^2-(sigma(C1)-C1-1)*x+C1=0
              {P1,P2}=
              {((sigma(C1)-C1-1)+-sqrt((sigma(C1)-C1-1)^2-4*C1))/2}

              Then sigma(x) can be computed from the following
              equations:

              sigma(1)=1
              sum(((x-1)-5*k*(k+1))/2*sigma(x-k*(k+1)),
              for k=0 to FLOOR((SQRT(1+4*x)-1)/2))=0

              These equations make the infinite matrix equation for
              sigma(x). Maybe you can use it as density matrix equation.
              But I don't know how it can be done, alas.

              Aleksey
            • Kent Nguyen
              ... occupy precisely ... can you elaborate? Why don t you use the word occupy exactly ? ... If there is a wavefunction to describe prime number, and I
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                On Wednesday 01 August 2001 08:10, Paul Leyland wrote:
                > > One of the postulate in quantum theory states that no two
                > > particle can occupy the same place at the same time.
                >
                > Not true in general. It is true for fermions (particles with spin
                > (2i+1)/2) and is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. For bosons
                > (particles with integral spin) particles can, and do, occupy precisely
                > the same state at the same time. It's why lasers, superfluids and
                > superconductors have such interesting properties.

                "occupy precisely" ... can you elaborate? Why don't you use the word "occupy
                exactly"?

                >
                > I fail to see what any of this has to do with factorization, but it will
                > be interesting to see if anything comes from it.

                If there is a wavefunction to describe prime number, and I believe there is.
                A few scientists have report a spectral in nature that resemble prime number
                sequence.

                If this wavefunction exist we can use the "position" of the prime numbers to
                figure out primes to a composite number.

                (1, 2) (2, 3) (3, 5) (4, 7) ... (n, p)

                Rather than finding p we find n for the wavefunction.

                Such that sigma(C1) = { n1, n2 }.

                --kent
              • Kent Nguyen
                ... Hi Aleksey! ... If I find the wavefunction, I will use Newton s method of approximation to find out the primes. In order to use Newton s method, I need to
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                  On Wednesday 01 August 2001 11:41, Aleksey D. Tetyorko wrote:
                  > > > > I'm actively trying to crack the RSA code. My paper:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > http://www.mslinux.com/research/cracking_pki/cracking_pki.html
                  >
                  > Hi, Kent!

                  Hi Aleksey!

                  > I took a look at your paper. As I see it there *is* function
                  > C1-->(P1, P2), but 'existence' does not mean 'fast
                  > computability'. If C1=P1*P2 and Pi are odd primes, then we
                  > can use the following (where sigma(n) is the sum of all the
                  > divisors of n).
                  >
                  > {sigma(C1)=1+P1+P2+C1
                  > {C1=P1*P2
                  >
                  > And we have the equation:
                  >
                  > x^2-(sigma(C1)-C1-1)*x+C1=0
                  > {P1,P2}=
                  > {((sigma(C1)-C1-1)+-sqrt((sigma(C1)-C1-1)^2-4*C1))/2}
                  >
                  > Then sigma(x) can be computed from the following
                  > equations:
                  >
                  > sigma(1)=1
                  > sum(((x-1)-5*k*(k+1))/2*sigma(x-k*(k+1)),
                  > for k=0 to FLOOR((SQRT(1+4*x)-1)/2))=0
                  >
                  > These equations make the infinite matrix equation for
                  > sigma(x). Maybe you can use it as density matrix equation.
                  > But I don't know how it can be done, alas.

                  If I find the wavefunction, I will use Newton's method of approximation to
                  find out the primes. In order to use Newton's method, I need to make a good
                  guess, a good guess is sqrt(C1)/2. Newton's method of approximation is very
                  fast, it is the method used in calculator to find square root, cubic root,
                  and inverses.

                  For example to find sqrt of 2, using Netwon's method, it only takes 5 adding,
                  dividing, and multiplying iterations to come close to the answer you see in
                  your calculator.

                  A good reference of Newton's method:
                  http://gamba.ugrad.math.ubc.ca/coursedoc/math100/notes/approx/newton.html

                  --kent
                • Paul Leyland
                  ... precisely ... You re quibbling. If you prefer it, I m equally happy with occupy exactly . If you really want to get pedantic, I d be even happier with
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                    > > Not true in general. It is true for fermions (particles with spin
                    > > (2i+1)/2) and is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. For bosons
                    > > (particles with integral spin) particles can, and do, occupy
                    precisely
                    > > the same state at the same time. It's why lasers, superfluids and
                    > > superconductors have such interesting properties.
                    >
                    > "occupy precisely" ... can you elaborate? Why don't you use
                    > the word "occupy exactly"?

                    You're quibbling. If you prefer it, I'm equally happy with "occupy
                    exactly". If you really want to get pedantic, I'd be even happier with
                    phrasing along the lines of "there is no constraint on the occupancy
                    number of an eigenstate of a system of bosons" but that seems unduly
                    wordy.

                    If we're being pedantic, your original statement is unequivocably false.
                    It's not even strictly true for fermions in that the Pauli exclusion
                    principle is not really a postulate of quantum mechanics (in the sense
                    of a presupposed truth which is not amenable to question) but rather a
                    consequence of the anticommutativity of operators acting on fermion
                    quantum fields. I was being generous and assumed you meant
                    "consequence" or "feature" where you wrote "postulate".

                    Even being that generous, your statement "no two particle (sic) can
                    occupy the same place at the same time" is false, if by "place" you mean
                    spatial location. For a start, two fermions differing only in spin can
                    occupy the same energy state. Further, from Heisenberg's uncertainty
                    principle, the spatial location of each of two particles can only be
                    precisely determined if their momenta are completely undetermined. If
                    you know anything about the momenta of the particles, their wave
                    functions *will* overlap in space. Trying to nail down "the same time"
                    is equally difficult: the particle's energy is then the conjugate
                    quantity. But I'll be generous again and assume that by "particle" you
                    meant fermion and that by "place" you meant eigenstate.

                    If you really want to make progress, I suggest that you consult an
                    introductory text or two on quantum field theory. It's 19 years since I
                    last studied QFT so the references I can quote from memory are now
                    outdated and possibly unavailable, but I'm sure there must be
                    contemporary works available.

                    (Just checked on Amazon: a search on Quantum Field Theory yields 596
                    hits, so you ought to be able to find something. Further, the book I
                    own, Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory written by John M Ziman in
                    1975, is still in print.)


                    Paul
                  • Paul Leyland
                    ... precisely ... You re quibbling. If you prefer it, I m equally happy with occupy exactly . If you really want to get pedantic, I d be even happier with
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                      > > Not true in general. It is true for fermions (particles with spin
                      > > (2i+1)/2) and is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. For bosons
                      > > (particles with integral spin) particles can, and do, occupy
                      precisely
                      > > the same state at the same time. It's why lasers, superfluids and
                      > > superconductors have such interesting properties.
                      >
                      > "occupy precisely" ... can you elaborate? Why don't you use
                      > the word "occupy exactly"?

                      You're quibbling. If you prefer it, I'm equally happy with "occupy
                      exactly". If you really want to get pedantic, I'd be even happier with
                      phrasing along the lines of "there is no constraint on the occupancy
                      number of an eigenstate of a system of bosons" but that seems unduly
                      wordy.

                      If we're being pedantic, your original statement is unequivocably false.
                      It's not even strictly true for fermions in that the Pauli exclusion
                      principle is not really a postulate of quantum mechanics (in the sense
                      of a presupposed truth which is not amenable to question) but rather a
                      consequence of the anticommutativity of operators acting on fermion
                      quantum fields. I was being generous and assumed you meant
                      "consequence" or "feature" where you wrote "postulate".

                      Even being that generous, your statement "no two particle (sic) can
                      occupy the same place at the same time" is false, if by "place" you mean
                      spatial location. For a start, two fermions differing only in spin can
                      occupy the same energy state. Further, from Heisenberg's uncertainty
                      principle, the spatial location of each of two particles can only be
                      precisely determined if their momenta are completely undetermined. If
                      you know anything about the momenta of the particles, their wave
                      functions *will* overlap in space. Trying to nail down "the same time"
                      is equally difficult: the particle's energy is then the conjugate
                      quantity. But I'll be generous again and assume that by "particle" you
                      meant fermion and that by "place" you meant eigenstate.

                      If you really want to make progress, I suggest that you consult an
                      introductory text or two on quantum field theory. It's 19 years since I
                      last studied QFT so the references I can quote from memory are now
                      outdated and possibly unavailable, but I'm sure there must be
                      contemporary works available.

                      (Just checked on Amazon: a search on Quantum Field Theory yields 596
                      hits, so you ought to be able to find something. Further, the book I
                      own, Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory written by John M Ziman in
                      1975, is still in print.)


                      Paul
                    • Kent Nguyen
                      ... First Pauli exclusion principle states: In a closed system, no two electrons can occupy the same state. http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node168.html
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                        On Wednesday 01 August 2001 13:01, Paul Leyland wrote:
                        > > > Not true in general. It is true for fermions (particles with spin
                        > > > (2i+1)/2) and is known as the Pauli exclusion principle. For bosons
                        > > > (particles with integral spin) particles can, and do, occupy
                        >
                        > precisely
                        >
                        > > > the same state at the same time. It's why lasers, superfluids and
                        > > > superconductors have such interesting properties.
                        > >
                        > > "occupy precisely" ... can you elaborate? Why don't you use
                        > > the word "occupy exactly"?
                        >
                        > You're quibbling. If you prefer it, I'm equally happy with "occupy
                        > exactly". If you really want to get pedantic, I'd be even happier with
                        > phrasing along the lines of "there is no constraint on the occupancy
                        > number of an eigenstate of a system of bosons" but that seems unduly
                        > wordy.

                        First Pauli exclusion principle states:
                        "In a closed system, no two electrons can occupy the same state."
                        http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node168.html

                        Note Pauli only states for occupance of same state not same time.

                        This isn't "exactly" what I'm saying. Go back and read "exactly" what I
                        said. Because when you say "occupy exactly" ... I'm very suspicious whether
                        you've figured a way to violate Heinsberg uncertainity principle.
                        http://www.srikant.org/core/node12.html

                        >
                        > If we're being pedantic, your original statement is unequivocably false.
                        > It's not even strictly true for fermions in that the Pauli exclusion
                        > principle is not really a postulate of quantum mechanics (in the sense
                        > of a presupposed truth which is not amenable to question) but rather a
                        > consequence of the anticommutativity of operators acting on fermion
                        > quantum fields. I was being generous and assumed you meant
                        > "consequence" or "feature" where you wrote "postulate".

                        You don't have to be generous. You need to understand what I wrote. You are
                        assuming what I wrote is "Pauli exclusion principle". Having bad assumption
                        leads to bad argument.

                        >
                        > If you really want to make progress, I suggest that you consult an
                        > introductory text or two on quantum field theory. It's 19 years since I
                        > last studied QFT so the references I can quote from memory are now
                        > outdated and possibly unavailable, but I'm sure there must be
                        > contemporary works available.

                        Working for your employer really makes you *think* you are making progress.
                        :)

                        >
                        > (Just checked on Amazon: a search on Quantum Field Theory yields 596
                        > hits, so you ought to be able to find something. Further, the book I
                        > own, Elements of Advanced Quantum Theory written by John M Ziman in
                        > 1975, is still in print.)

                        Thanks for using amazon.com, it's better than bn.com don't you think? :)

                        --kent
                      • Paul Leyland
                        ... No it does not! Just because that web page makes that claim that doesn t mean that the PEP is as stated. The PEP states that no two fermions can occupy
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                          > First Pauli exclusion principle states:
                          > "In a closed system, no two electrons can occupy the same state."
                          > http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node168.html

                          No it does not! Just because that web page makes that claim that
                          doesn't mean that the PEP is as stated. The PEP states that no two
                          fermions can occupy the same quantum state. Electrons are fermions,
                          indeed, but electrons can pair up to form "Cooper pairs" which
                          themselves are bosons. These bosons can indeed occupy the same quantum
                          state and, when they do, give rise to the phenomenon of
                          supercoductivity.

                          The web page itself goes on to state "actually, protons and neutrons
                          obey the same principle, while photons do not)" something you seem to
                          have missed. Lasers function precisely because photons do not obey the
                          same principle. Protons and neutrons are spin-half particles and thus
                          fermions; photons are spin-zero bosons. Photons, as far as we know,
                          have no sub-structure but both protons and neutrons are composite
                          particles (as are Cooper pairs and helium nuclei). The helium-4 nucleus
                          is a spin-zero boson and so can violate the PEP. When it does, bulk
                          helium-4 becomes superfluid. The helium-3 nucleus is a spin-half
                          fermion and so liquid helium-3 doesn't become superfluid until the
                          temperature is low enough for pairs of nuclei to form spin-zero bosons,
                          whereupon it too shows superfluidity.

                          > This isn't "exactly" what I'm saying. Go back and read
                          > "exactly" what I said.

                          Very well, I quote: "One of the postulate in quantum theory states that
                          no two particle can occupy the same place at the same time."

                          This statement is just plain wrong, for the reasons I went into
                          previously.

                          > Because when you say "occupy exactly" ... I'm very
                          > suspicious whether
                          > you've figured a way to violate Heinsberg uncertainity principle.
                          > http://www.srikant.org/core/node12.html

                          For a start, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle only applies to
                          conjugate quantities, such as energy/time and linear momentum/position
                          (these two quantities are, of course, special cases of the more general
                          4-momentum / spacetime coordinates). It does *not* apply to
                          non-conjugate measurements, such as the x-component of momentum and the
                          y coordinate, which can be simultaneously measured to arbitrary
                          accuracy.

                          In general, if the operators corresponding to observables anti-commute,
                          HUP applies. If they commute, they do not.

                          Please read some real books on quantum theory.


                          > assuming what I wrote is "Pauli exclusion principle". Having
                          > bad assumption leads to bad argument.

                          But that is precisely what you did write!

                          > Working for your employer really makes you *think* you are
                          > making progress. :)

                          I don't think I understand that comment. Don't bother elucidating, as
                          the smiley suggests that it's probably not that important.


                          I'm becoming ever more convinced that this thread has very little, if
                          anything, to do with prime numbers. I've probably already bored the
                          majority of readers, so I'll drop out of it here.


                          Paul
                        • Kent Nguyen
                          ... You miss the point of the relation to prime number. Cracking the RSA code is a linear problem, thus a one-dimensional problem. You come and talk about the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 1, 2001
                            > I'm becoming ever more convinced that this thread has very little, if
                            > anything, to do with prime numbers. I've probably already bored the
                            > majority of readers, so I'll drop out of it here.

                            You miss the point of the relation to prime number.

                            Cracking the RSA code is a linear problem, thus a one-dimensional problem.
                            You come and talk about the 4th dimension, which to me doesn't seem relevant.
                            So you ya, you convince yourself.

                            As I've said before, there exist a very close spectra that resemble prime
                            number sequence.
                            http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/physics1.htm

                            My equation with two variables:

                            Assume = C1 = P1*P2
                            f(x) = x^2 - (P1 + P2)*x + C1 = 0

                            I only have one equation with two variables. I need another equation to
                            solve for P1 and P2. That's what lead me to quantum mechanic in trying to
                            find the wavefunction that describes prime number sequence.

                            If P1 = P2, I can use the quadraic formula to solve for x. Resulting in
                            sqrt(C1).

                            If P1 < P2 or P1 > P2, it's a more difficult situation.

                            --kent
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.