unruh
Posts:
17
Registered:
11/5/11
|
|
Re: Factorization theory wrong? Or algorithmic error?
Posted:
Apr 9, 2012 8:26 PM
|
|
On 2012-04-09, Pertti's Ghost <lounesto-legacy@helsinki.edu.fi> wrote:
> As it is not Sunday, I will break with my tradition of not engaging with
> or responding to the mentally-challenged:
>
> On Sunday 8 Apr 2012 20:07:11 +0200, karl<oudeis@nononet.com> wrote:
>
>> This is from the first post of barker:
>> As part of my research into improving factorization algorithms, I
>> encountered this composite number, 347 decimal digits long (>1150 bits),
>> which I'll call A:
>>
>> Seems as if you are wrong?
>
> You have confused yourself between A and C.
Sounds like we know who Barker is.
>
> Of course A is composite, and barker never claimed otherwise. Quoting
> from barker's post:
>
> This is A, a positive integer:
>
> 3634908448770161716619462884730373820150226880205007030541419827683585
> 7931761274740311086713549497603607279611408949613526779622187756741117
> 9048935484829402996681944342388178421558785023331981868685440034884277
> 9396792124395994336764804183754455993340622344242614470170379064513230
> 0552661368276733695867117608484513671228954258971153834928109857741
>
> This is B, a positive integer:
>
> 3246726736489147307461784686107468324672673648914730746178468610746834
> 6821883878114173728372983219193183717113173468218838781141737283729832
> 1919318371711317
>
> This is C, a positive integer:
>
> 1119560943616947347400615409002575284369887465143010602130506309766179
> 0753006072671322304202892348769562317880539561982179986874385643005873
> 1438452818437316840959014392166803390411010978334873
>
> And it is trivial to check:
>
> A = B x C
>
> Therefore, A is composite. barker was correct.
>
> C, not A, is the number about which barker wrote:
>
> "which tested algorithms suggest is prime, but which I have factorized."
>
> but barker never wrote these factors were prime factors (1 is not
> prime) or proper factors (C is not a proper factor of C), and his
> claim that C's smaller factor was "almost 2^300" is, of course, not
> false, as 1 is almost 2^300 in the scale of other numbers mentioned,
> e.g., A > 2^1150 and C > 2^635 >> (2^300)^2 >> 2^300.
The scale for almost is given in the sentence itself, 2^300. Not 2^635
oe 2^1150.
>
> barker's factorization was C = 1 x C.
You know this how? You are barker?
>
> Everything barker wrote was correct. His critics missed every single
> finesse. Even after their errors are corrected, they keep arguing.
No, it was not. I am afraid he strayed beyond the bounds where pilpul
turns into lies.
>
> Sadly-
> any idiot can post to sci.math, and
> many do.
>
Yes, they do, don't they. (and sci.physics, and
alt.security.pgp,and comp.security.pgp.discuss, and
alt.politics.org.nsa)
|
|
