
Re: Factorization theory wrong? Or algorithmic error?
Posted:
Apr 8, 2012 9:17 AM


On Apr 8, 9:13 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 7:22 am, barker > > > > > > <name.temporarily.withh...@antispamming.harvard.edu> wrote: > > hagman <goo...@voneitzen.de> wrote innews:21567801.642.1333835088537.JavaMail.geodiscussionforums@vbtv42... > > > > Am Samstag, 7. April 2012 17:50:35 UTC+2 schrieb William Hughes: > > > > On Apr 7, 10:46=A0am, hagman <goo...@voneitzen.de> wrote: > > > > > Am Freitag, 6. April 2012 22:46:50 UTC+2 schrieb William Hughes: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 7:19=A0pm, barker > > > > > > <name.temporarily.withh...@antispamming.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE > > > > > > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > > > > We (mathematicians) have grown to accept the primality checkers as > > > > > > > gospel. So did I, until recently. > > > > > > > > This could be big, or it could be I've overlooked something, though= > > > I > > > > > > > have hunted for 3 days for a flaw. I'd appreciate if you could chec= > > > k > > > > > > > this over for me. This post is digitally signed in case I need to p= > > > rove > > > > > > > ownership, should my discovery (if it is a discovery) be stolen. > > > > > > > > As part of my research into improving factorization algorithms, I > > > > > > > encountered this composite number, 347 decimal digits long (>1150 b= > > > its), > > > > > > > which I'll call A: > > > > > > > > 3634908448770161716619462884730373820150226880205007030541419827683= > > > 585 > > > > > > > 7931761274740311086713549497603607279611408949613526779622187756741= > > > 117 > > > > > > > 9048935484829402996681944342388178421558785023331981868685440034884= > > > 277 > > > > > > > 9396792124395994336764804183754455993340622344242614470170379064513= > > > 230 > > > > > > > 0552661368276733695867117608484513671228954258971153834928109857741 > > > > > > > > I won't tell you how I generated A, because if there's no flaw in w= > > > hat > > > > > > > I've done (I intend to make real money out of this, if it is possib= > > > le), > > > > > > > the way I came up with A is a giveaway to the whole process. > > > > > > > > I won't ask you to factorize A, because you may not be able to. Her= > > > e is > > > > > > > its "smaller prime factor"** ("B"), which is 156 decimal digits lon= > > > g: > > > > > > > > 3246726736489147307461784686107468324672673648914730746178468610746= > > > 834 > > > > > > > 6821883878114173728372983219193183717113173468218838781141737283729= > > > 832 > > > > > > > 1919318371711317 > > > > > > > > ** that is, smaller as identified by all the factorization algorith= > > > ms > > > > > > > that I have encountered. If you are not professional mathematicians > > > > > > > and do not have access to factorization tools, I recommend you use: > > > > > > > =A0http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM > > > > > > > which will work on any modern web browser, to confirm what I have > > > > > > > just stated (i.e., that A is composite, B is prime and that A/B is = > > > an > > > > > > > integer; whether A/B is prime is moot). > > > > > > > > ECM's author Dario Alpern has diligently implemented factorization > > > > > > > algorithms. His implementations are not in question (I assume they = > > > are > > > > > > > accurate, as do my colleagues)  it is the theory itself that is no= > > > w > > > > > > > in question. > > > > > > > > Divide A by B to get the 192 decimal digit number C. =A0Since 192/2= > > > < 156, > > > > > > > it follows that if B was the smaller prime factor of A, then C must= > > > be > > > > > > > prime. > > > > > > > > {Lemma: Assume C was nonprime. Then it must have at least one prim= > > > e > > > > > > > factor that is less than 97 (=3D 192/2 + 1) decimal digits long. Th= > > > is > > > > > > > would falsify the algorithmic result that B, at 156 decimal digits,= > > > is > > > > > > > the smallest prime factor of A. Therefore C must be prime.} > > > > > > > > I didn't want to give you C (=3D A/B) as I want you to (trivially) = > > > compute > > > > > > > it yourself (but for the lazy, it appears at the end of this post). > > > > > > > > Now check C's primality. C should be prime, per the lemma above. Ri= > > > ght? > > > > > > > > Indeed, all the primality checkers I have tested show that C is pri= > > > me. > > > > > > > Including the java one at: > > > > > > > =A0http://www.alpertron.com.ar/ECM.HTM > > > > > > > > Well, I can tell you that I have factorized C... and handchecked i= > > > t, as > > > > > > > at first I could not believe the fluke finding. > > > > > > > > C's smaller factor is almost 2^300, so C's decomposition is nontri= > > > vial. > > > > > > > In the time window before you can bruteforce this, I will disclose= > > > its > > > > > > > factors, and the methods that: > > > > > > > 1) got me to A (Hint: diagonalization, Cantor), and > > > > > > > 2) factorized C. > > > > > > > > But at this point, I do not want to disclose C's factors, until I h= > > > ave > > > > > > > heard the more competent fellow mathematicians here confirm C's all= > > > eged > > > > > > > primality, according to the algorithms we all becomed conditioned t= > > > o > > > > > > > believing are true. > > > > > > > > I do hope I have not overlooked anything. Your assistance is apprec= > > > iated. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > "barker" (associate of the late falsified nondullrich Dr Pertti Lo= > > > unesto) > > > > > > > > Footnote: =A0For the lazy, here is the 192 decimal digit number C: > > > > > > > 1119560943616947347400615409002575284369887465143010602130506309766= > > > 179 > > > > > > > 0753006072671322304202892348769562317880539561982179986874385643005= > > > 873 > > > > > > > 1438452818437316840959014392166803390411010978334873 > > > > > > > which tested algorithms suggest is prime, but which I have factoriz= > > > ed. > > > > > > > > BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE > > > > > > > > VQEcBAEBCgAGBQJOe7YRAAoJEAjjY4weks8oA7QIAK3ELb/+NKP1vLPT8f7HQTaf > > > > > > > YmqnG0TdO44RMJdbqpxsp6DoMx5JkMgluha8y6LIV3rBHHDKGQx3YwKzVTT5r81 > > > > > > > DOOQr3LQdLgmoemhdot2Dse16XQ7OoWzvJwqvvYYBZ0S/J2SsrAFUAoQAe35/4 > > > > > > > 9NkVg3JSzV+AFPQyv5hpS780v0cObSPl7yz32MypgvZkYZupC3xP/3Pdl8Fg205 > > > > > > > NkiDEaDlJcIKM8ARJJtndd7cfNBKZ3Bh1OEQ1NwPFEMZ6uAR3S/DLdF0dY1MMxr > > > > > > > RRcluph+MLmTRZngA8NG9qRCBQT2IgTZNatjnZv2pcwgC0MddUnyS07bNypHg8=3D > > > > > > > =3D87KU > > > > > > > END PGP SIGNATURE > > > > > > > I predict that if and when you provide your putative factors, one of > > > > > > them will have a prime factor less that 1,000,000 > > > > > > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0  William Hughes > > > > > > Since it is readily checked that C has no prime factors less than 1,000= > > > ,000 > > > > > (or even less than 1,000,000,000), your prediction amounts to barker > > > > > not revealing factors at all. =A0:) > > > > > > hagman > > > >=20 > > > > Nope. The above is only valid if the putative factors are in fact > > > > factors of C. > > > > Since C does not have any proper factors they will not be. > > > >=20 > > > >  William Hughes > > > > Well, at least I can write C as product of two integers such that neither > > > of these integers has a prime factor < 1,000,000. > > > Up to permutation of factors there's only one way to do so. ;) > > > At last, someone is at least a little bit on the right track? > > > Very poor reading and analytical skills shown in sci.math, no better than > > in alt.politics.org.nsa. The original post contains no mistake(s), > > error(s) > > or wrong statement(s). Was it read carefully enough? Apparently, no. > You wrote: > > "Well, I can tell you that I have factorized C... and handchecked it, > as > at first I could not believe the fluke finding. > > C's smaller factor is almost 2^300, so C's decomposition is non > trivial. > In the time window before you can bruteforce this, I will disclose > its > factors, and the methods that: > 1) got me to A (Hint: diagonalization, Cantor), and > 2) factorized C. " > > Since C is prime, any intelligent reader is going to conclude that you > are a spamming and lying piece of shit. > > > > > I will supply a further hint. If we add together the 2 factors of C, to > > arrive at D, the largest prime factor of D is the 183 decimal digit > > number: > > 358050379911852746241673609972200391570944003061600841442151335677224869 > > 764099592907918958324761500403496107209279988661853710490640317981357174 > > 732801778565826180964783476648958068743 > > IMPOSSIBLE by the statement you made before. You stated that the > smallest > factor of C was approximately 2^300. The sum of the two factors of C > is > therefore approximately S = 2^300 + C/2^300 and this number is
The rest got cut off. S is TOO SMALL to have a 183digit factor.

