On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:35:56 AM UTC-5, scattered wrote:
>> You seem to need some valium or something. To say that a method is efficient isn't to say that it is the most efficient method in existence. I wrote an inefficient Python implementation of Pollard's rho when I first read about it a few years ago (idle curiosity on my part, this isn't my area of expertise). I just tried it on 130642890110987 and the factorization appeared on my screen even before my pinky left the enter key (even though Python is a "slow" interpreted language). That is "almost instantly" in any reasonable interpretation of that phrase.
You have a strange notion of the word "efficient". The topic of discussion is computer implementation of factoring methods. In that domain human perception of "almost instantly" is meaningless. What does have meaning is how well the method performs when called as a subroutine. By any reasonable interpretation of the word "efficient", an exponential time algorithm is NOT efficient. Indeed, even from a theoretical computer science point of view exponential time algorithms are NOT efficient.
>There is no reason to adopt a scolding tone againt somebody who make the true albeit unnuanced claim that Pollard's rho can efficiently factor numbers of that size.
This NG has become overwhelmed with cranks, spammers, and nonsense. When I see someone who is ignorant of a subject make an ignorant and erroneous claim, I respond.
To claim that Pollard Rho is efficient is wrong. It is not.