Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Is factorization of big primeproducts a solved problem YET?
Replies: 19   Last Post: Jan 30, 2013 5:05 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Phil Carmody Posts: 2,219 Registered: 12/7/04
Re: Is factorization of big primeproducts a solved problem YET?
Posted: Jan 11, 2013 11:59 AM

Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> writes:
> On Jan 10, 11:28 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:

> > Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> writes:
> > > On Jan 8, 8:46 am, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
> > > wrote:

> > > > In article <kc6gg1\$au...@dont-email.me>, David Bernier <david...@videotron.ca> writes:
> > > > >On 01/04/2013 12:01 AM, JT wrote:
> > > > >> Does the RSA challenges have a given time complexity of factoring the
> > > > >> primeproduct, or did they have one that  changed during resent years?

> >
> > > > >The RSA challenge numbers are still available somewhere.
> > > > >The contests for prize money has been discontinued.

> >
> > > > >I think many remain unfactored, as far as the general
> > > > >public knows, i.e. outside cryptologic agencies and
> > > > >government cipher schools.

> >
> > > > >They would deliberately choose n = p*q, p, q odd primes
> > > > >with the digit length of p and q being about half that
> > > > >of the composite number `n'.

> >
> > > Not 'about half'.  Exactly half.
> >
> <snip>
>

> > Of course, in practice, there's no reason not to not chose numbers
> > of exactly the same length, but that's different from that condition
> > being an absolute necessity.

>
> Idiot.

Psychopath

> Please point out where I said that p and q being the same size was an
> absolute necessity??? I simply said that the moduli were constructed
> with p and q having the same bit length. I described THE WAY IT WAS
> DONE.

He said "would", that's a conditional modal that implies a future
aspect. What has happened in the past is irrelevant.

> I did not say "it is necessary that p & q have the same length".

You imposed duty on their future actions, arrogantly obliging them to
make p & q the same length.

> Now, given all of this, there IS a reason why p & q have the same
> length.
> I will mention two words: "interoperability" and "standards". Read
> e.g. Fips-140,
> ISO-9796, IEEE-1363, ANSI-X9.31, etc.

Total non-sequitur. This is about some arbitrary factoring challenge,
nothing else.

> Next time, try comprehending what you read before you shoot your mouth
> off.

You first.

Phil
--
I'm not saying that google groups censors my posts, but there's a strong link
between me saying "google groups sucks" in articles, and them disappearing.

Oh - I guess I might be saying that google groups censors my posts.

Date Subject Author
1/4/13 JT
1/4/13 David Bernier
1/8/13 Michael Stemper
1/8/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/10/13 Phil Carmody
1/10/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/10/13 Richard Tobin
1/11/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/11/13 Phil Carmody
1/11/13 Phil Carmody
1/11/13 Phil Carmody
1/4/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/4/13 JT
1/4/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/4/13 amzoti
1/4/13 Pubkeybreaker
1/4/13 amzoti
1/10/13 Graham Cooper
1/11/13 David Bernier
1/30/13 Rosario1903