> On Feb 19, 5:40 pm, JSH
gmail.com> wrote:>> So now with the full surrogate factoring theory, results are coming
>> fast and furious and I'll admit being very, very, very surprised that
>> an RSA number might be factored by p=3 and a fairly simple technique.
>>
>> Those looking over the argument may recognize that there is only one
>> area where it's even maybe kind of looking like I didn't feel in the
>> blanks which is with how you find k.
>>
>> But just try it. Factor a few numbers and you'll get that weird,
>> giddy out of this world feeling like maybe you stepped into the
>> Twilight Zone.
>>
>> Reading over posters ranting and raving in reply to me is kind of
>> weird now. It's like there is something oddly wrong with them, but I
>> can't quite put my finger on it.
>>
>> The challenges to factor an RSA public key though, seem to be
>> answerable now, and I'm mainly just absorbing the latest and the sense
>> of profound oddity of it all.
>>
>> You can factor an RSA public key, if that key is 2 modulo 3, and if
>> with
>>
>> z^2 = y^2 + public key
>>
>> z is divisible by 3, and the math will just do it and kind of wink at
>> you as if it wasn't even hard.
>>
>> And you get k by finding k such that abs(public key - 2k^2 ) is a
>> minimum and k is even, and you have two possibles k = 1 mod 3, or k =
>> -1 mod 3.
>>
>> Then x = k/2, and z = 3x, and you get y and factor the public key.
>>
>> Just like that.
>>
>> Yup, I had reason to worry about factoring. Wacky. Factoring a
>> public key with p=3. Who would have thought the RSA system would
>> crash so profoundly?
>>
>> Here's another example: T = (101)(103) = 10403, so trying k=-1 mod 3
>> (as I already know that k = 1 mod 3 won't work):
>>
>> k = 68 is the maximal k, such that abs (10403 - 2k^2) is a minimum.
>>
>> x = k/3 = 34. z = x + k = 102. 102^2 - 10403 = 1. y = 1, so
>
> Should be x = k/2. I'm feeling very stressed out at this point.
Wrong!
should be Picka x = k /3
>>
>> z-y = 101, z+y = 103
>>
>> and that could just as easily been an RSA public key.
>>
>> Still seems so weird though. So easy. All that work people did for
>> all those years and the answer is so easy.
>>
>
> And it's trivial math, like I explained in a previous post about
> helper primes.
your conception of helper primes is all wrong, as it is in base 10.
convert all numbers to binary and work there.
Binary will help you lose your attachment to the notion of "helper primes".
Remember binary, base 10, Hex etc are all just different representations of
the same numbers.
>
> The primes were there to help all along.
This is your mistake.
>
> The prime numbers were there to help all along.
no, they do not 'help', except in a sieve.
> They step in and they step out.
Your understanding of this is flawed, work in binary or Hex and you will see
this.
> I really don't think that my research was ignored by accident or
> honest mistakes in considering it. I got the one paper published in
> SWJPAM and the damn journal editors pulled it under SOCIAL pressure
> from sci.math'ers. Newsgroup people influencing math editors.
Wrong, it was never published, it was rejected outright by staff.
> And then the freaking journal died.
>
> Mathematicians went on the run, that's all. Rather than accept that
> they had things wrong they thought they could just lie and rely in me
> not being believed.
I read the paper you submitted.
It was shallow, very incomplete, bad format, a single pager of doodle
signifying nothing, except that you were asleep in all your High School
algebra classes.
>
> Think about all those undergrads taught crap math deliberately when
> they could have been taught real mathematics.
You are one of those who were taught crap, or you were not paying attention
in class
>
> Over five years of undergrads.
You were an undergrad for 5 years ? Could not make the cut.
>
> Deliberately taught wrong.
you never studied, or opened a math book.
>
> And I've contacted Ribet, and I've contacted Mazur, so who knows what
> Wiles knew. He did not find a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
Why are you the only one saying that? Jealous they are far smarter than you
are ?
>
> His research fails with a simple logical fallacy.
Says you, a self admitted non-mathematician.
Which makes you a Troll, a Crackpot
> How gone do people have to be when they can't be moved by the fate of
> the human race? When they can claim to be at the pinnacle of
> mathematics when they're teaching wrong information and blocking the
> correct?
Your's is wrong. You will always be wrong, because you cannot work with
anybody, your NPD, and you are a troll and a crackpot.
>
> What about our future?
You can wait for the Comet.......
>
> So they didn't know how to factor.
Yes they do, Google "red storm", monkey-butt.
They will factor ANY number you can, but 10^20 times faster.
http://www.sandia.gov/ASC/redstorm.html
and NSA has a bigger faster one.
JSH you are far down in the noise when it comes to factoring.
you are just lonely troll
>
> Why is that a surprise? They didn't know much mathematics at all.
you are Projecting again....... wiki for it.
>
>
> James Harris
