Brimstone for cracking RSA. (jk)

[SarK0Y]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Just factor this:

22881674130987296817369335083505533792239602706912929845514703469287126491267727124570402660433186186250608348826913204513283590140161157396044966038359555681362347423

any one can try on their own. since then my task has been to reduce number of samples for given numbers.

[VBCurtis]

There's nothing to try. You can't get factors yourself. We certainly aren't going to be able to either.

You haven't demonstrated any factoring. Just a bunch of BS. Factor something.

[SarK0Y]

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

There's nothing to try. You can't get factors yourself. We certainly aren't going to be able to either.

You haven't demonstrated any factoring. Just a bunch of BS. Factor something.

bs? :) curious "synonym" for approximation. actually, i have no time to crack any number for NOTHING + it has no sense. so far here i have met laughable stock w/ deep phobias to open 7zip archive. So it was extremely naive for me to wait adequate dispute

[mathwiz]

Originally Posted by SarK0Y

bs? :) curious "synonym" for approximation. actually, i have no time to crack any number for NOTHING + it has no sense. so far here i have met laughable stock w/ deep phobias to open 7zip archive. So it was extremely naive for me to wait adequate dispute

Except you haven't actually demonstrated any sort of method or algorithm whatsoever.

[retina]

Originally Posted by SarK0Y

bs? :) curious "synonym" for approximation ...

If it isn't all just BS then show us why it isn't. Produce an actual result, instead of the endless pontificating and meaningless random numbers.

[SarK0Y]

Originally Posted by mathwiz

Except you haven't actually demonstrated any sort of method or algorithm whatsoever.

my point has been perfectly clear from the very start == I've researched the ways to approximate Z for polynomial time. I've shared sources & examples/results how to operate w/ those methods. So, i'd like to ask very naive question == is this forum for math & researchers or wtf here is going on it would have been purely understandable, if indigenous community would have shared alt methods to approximate Z w/ more speed (for instance) or would have provided some clues to improve shared algos. But NO ABSOLUTELY, my thread has been flooded by just absurd off-topic...
So, you want superb algo(s) & want to do NOTHING for :) so, any not magical algo is only bs for you

[mathwiz]

Originally Posted by SarK0Y

my point has been perfectly clear from the very start == I've researched the ways to approximate Z for polynomial time. I've shared sources & examples/results how to operate w/ those methods. So, i'd like to ask very naive question == is this forum for math & researchers or wtf here is going on it would have been purely understandable, if indigenous community would have shared alt methods to approximate Z w/ more speed (for instance) or would have provided some clues to improve shared algos. But NO ABSOLUTELY, my thread has been flooded by just absurd off-topic...
So, you want superb algo(s) & want to do NOTHING for :) so, any not magical algo is only bs for you

People on this forum generally care about

(1) efficient algorithms to factor large integers, or
(2) efficient algorithms for finding large primes (and proving them prime).

You've demonstrated no meaningful algorithm for doing either.

[SarK0Y]

Originally Posted by mathwiz

People on this forum generally care about

(1) efficient algorithms to factor large integers, or
(2) efficient algorithms for finding large primes (and proving them prime).

You've demonstrated no meaningful algorithm for doing either.

really? how could you have efficient algo, if you have done no research??? perhaps new algos appear out of the blue, right? :)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by SarK0Y

So, you want superb algo(s) & want to do NOTHING for :) so, any not magical algo is only bs for you

To prove that your algo is not BS I will give you 3 tests for it, each harder than the previous.

You need to solve the first one before your next post (and you must post the solution in your next post), or you may be banned (because you fail to show that your method works and just want to be a troll).
Then you must solve the next one (and post the answer) to continue posting.
After you have posted the answer to the third, then we will believe that you are on to something.

First test. Factor this semiprime (using your method):
3870092038884345663779821427477643475136534002402905753076769909311217

Second test Factor this semiprime (using your method)
150996579069406676849328254452885095204370060219736837010494868333342863322970462956706063

Third test. Factor this semiprime (using your method)

4735324369078304459849659757648833978535825054585241886997488631830939162381565490995222405517413444400835669

[SarK0Y]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

To prove that your algo is not BS I will give you 3 tests for it, each harder than the next.

You need to solve the first one before your next post (and you must post the solution in your next post), or you may be banned (because you fail to show that your method works and just want to be a troll).
Then you must solve the next one (and post the answer) to continue posting.
After you have posted the answer to the third, then we will believe that you are on to something.

First test. Factor this semiprime (using your method):
3870092038884345663779821427477643475136534002402905753076769909311217

Second test Factor this semiprime (using your method)
150996579069406676849328254452885095204370060219736837010494868333342863322970462956706063

Third test. Factor this semiprime (using your method)

4735324369078304459849659757648833978535825054585241886997488631830939162381565490995222405517413444400835669

You lost very point == the task ain't been just solve (it has no sense) == the task is to solve (at least approximate as much as possible) for POLYNOMIAL TIME. can you do it? so, don't feed me numbers == the're a hella lot of them w/o such help

[Gelly]

Originally Posted by SarK0Y

really? how could you have efficient algo, if you have done no research??? perhaps new algos appear out of the blue, right? :)

Here's the issue many forumites have with your approach and why you may consider responses to your research hostile:

1. You claimed to "have a milestone" in integer factorization and continue claiming that you will "crack rsa, if you have time". These are not light things to make claims for and, in fact, the bigger the claim, the more skeptical people are. It is no wonder, then, that to test your theories, people demand even basic results that will demonstrates tangible results people can work with.
   
2. You then refuse to demonstrate (or even explain!) your method in a significant way - after reading things on the forums, my best guess is approximation of the sum of P and Q given the product? Not even particularly how you do it, just that you'd rather like to? I am not very well versed in the topic, but I'm pretty sure you need the exact sum, and not just an approximation, and while being off by 0.000000001% would be promising, for a 200 digit number, that leaves you out by a number that is about 190 digits - absolutely no progress at all, really. I may be wrong about your accuracy, but it is not as if you've worked particularly hard to explain your accuracy in the first place, other than some confusing source code and text documents.
   
3. Most egregiously, you now have chosen to walk back the importance of your research, and scoff at us for expecting really anything at all for a thread that starts with "MILESTONE has been done :D".

If you wanted any cooperation, it would have been more helpful to ask questions about the topic - "Has there been any work done on factorizing RSA numbers with approximations of the sums of the primes in the product?" - rather than to announce "big results" and then be gleefully sour when people are doubtful. It would have saved us a lot of time, and it's likely there's already been a lot of research into the topic - with a good reason as to why it's failed so far.