<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > Gordon Burditt wrote: > > >Consider a relation between two integer factorizations: > > > > > >f_1 f_2 = k + g_1 g_2 > > > > > >and a solution with four unknowns w, x, y and z, as they are determined > > ... > > >I call this method the Holy Grail of factoring--a basic template for > > >factoring any composite. > > > > Which of the RSA challenge numbers have you factored with this? > > > > If that's too complicated, please demonstrate how you would use > > this to factor 32111. Or how about 6? > > > > Gordon L. Burditt > > Trivial theory. > > I find it weird that so many of you are lost on what mathematics is > that you still hold on as if I have to actually demonstrate for what > follows from the mathematics to be true. >
How about a deal:
If you provide a demonstration of how your theory can be used to successfully factor the next RSA number, then we will all stop calling you a crackpot. If we are able to find a flaw in your theory that proves that it won't work (and work on arbitrarily large number in polynomial time), then you agree to never post to Usenet again.
Come on, James. It's in the bag. You are sitting here with a theory that you claim you have proven and that is so trivial that it's correctness is obvious, but you can't get anyone to take a serious look at it because of your reputation. Well, here's your chance. Without taking any risk, since you have already proven your theory, you can offer something of value (provided anyone actually believes you would stick to your word) in order to get others to do what you aren't capable of.
> I found that you can just use > > f_1 f_2 = k + g_1 g_2 > > and four variables w, x, y and z with four linear equations, to SEE why > the method has to work, while to get g_1 and g_2 you use two of the > linear equations and the equation defining k as the difference to get a > set of possible values for g_1 and g_2. > > That theory is easy algebra. Trivial. It is a proof that the > factoring problem is actually trivially easy, and a mathematical proof > that RSA cannot be secure. > > But you want an implementation and a demonstration. > > I am sure, someone is working as we speak on giving you one. > > Some of you may joke about moving stocks, but you have inside > information, because our world is a little complicated and most people > don't read sci.crypt, but then again, this is public disclosure so > maybe you can move your stocks without breaking the law. > > I'm not sure. I'm not moving any. But it's not like I really have any > anyway. I long ago sold everything I had on the stock market, and only > recently acquired small amounts without choosing to do so. > > > James Harris >