The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Prime factorization
Replies: 17   Last Post: Nov 16, 2013 9:40 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 1,683
Registered: 2/12/07
Re: Prime factorization
Posted: Nov 12, 2013 9:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.