Didn't even find a useless factor of an uninteresting number! Take that! - Page 11

storflyt32 · 2016-01-26, 23:04

Sorry for the late response to this interesting subject, but apparently winter is bringing a couple of problems with it.

Is it not the fact that while factoring RSA-768 was a distributed project, it may not have left all the answers in between when it comes to possible results?

Really, if I was to try lifting a heavy stone using a rope, would I not change the grip handle by using my hands when one way of doing it is not working out?

In the world of factorization of numbers, this means that a given number less than or equal to the composite number of RSA-1024 would more or less have been factorized.

But if you use the Factor Database as a way of making a possible comparison here, this is probably not true.

Still there happen to be many numbers some 100 - 200 digits in size which have not yet been fully factorized.

Because of that, we are once again left to believe that factorizing a number like RSA-768 may only be carried out by using brute force and that there only exist one given solution to such a problem.

Is this the correct way of thinking, or should we still believe that the only way of finding a solution to a given problem may only be to divide it into smaller problems and next approach each one of these individually in order to find the correct answer?

Xyzzy · 2016-01-26, 23:20

storflyt32 · 2016-01-27, 00:42

So here is another thing which happened right now.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818016116

This number only had the three small factors, including 2^5 a short while ago.

I reported the P10 first here.

Next it became the task of finding the P22.

But when doing so, the rest of the number had already been fully factorized.

It this only an example that the factors which may have been found while factorizing RSA-512 or RSA-768
already may have been added since they might have been found?

Edit: Checking in with what I am doing, this one apparently was not that difficult.

Uncwilly · 2016-01-27, 03:28

Dear Bot,

You make me miss cmd.
We should give you Bob's e-mail address.

VBCurtis · 2016-01-27, 03:32

Your posts have moved above "word salad" level into "I don't know anything about math but I'm asking" level, so I'll bite.

Almost every post you make mentions RSA512 or 768 or 1024, usually 1024. You use words like "divides", sometimes even in quotations, when none of the others numbers you mention or link divide any RSA number. I can't figure out why you think these other numbers have any relation whatsoever to RSA1024, but perhaps some day you'll say something that indicates your reasoning, and we'll be able to educate you on what assumptions you have that lead to you doing all this useless stuff.

Despite the enormous gulf between your English and mine, I'll try some educating:
1. If you want to factor an RSA number, there is no other number whose factors make it easier to find the factors of the RSA number. Every factor you post of some other number has NOTHING to do with factoring any RSA number. Period. Every time you post about some number nobody else cares about while mentioning RSA-anything, you show total ignorance of the topic.

2. Some numbers do automatically have factors just because of their form. Try reading about "aurifeuillian factorization" for an example. However, the vast majority of candidate numbers do NOT have any obvious factors, and RSA numbers are chosen in a way that ensures they have no algebraic factors, or small factors of any kind. There is no way to look at a number like "13*2^832-1" and know it does or does not have small factors, medium factors, or anything else about it. To factor it, we would use the same tools as any other number: trial division, ECM, then NFS if ECM doesn't find all the factors. The form of the number can help make NFS faster, but it doesn't provide us any factors.

In exchange for this wisdom, I ask that you stop blabbering about numbers that divide RSA-1024, or any other RSA number. No number you've put in the factorDB has anything to do with a factor of any RSA number, and any claim otherwise is flatly a misuse of the word "divides" or "factor".

If I asked you to find the factors of an 8-digit number without using a computer, how would you do it?

storflyt32 · 2016-01-27, 03:49

The bad thing is when trying using nfs on a number and later returning back to it, the output is exactly the same as a factor command which ended in failure.

One option is replacing factor with siqs, but whether or not this is doing any better, it most often hangs with nothing more being listed and then exits, returning nothing when it comes to possible factors.

So, if the result is supposed to become a hashtable, typically no final result or factors are being generated at the end, which only results in much wasted time for nothing in return.

Edit: Posting the above before reading the previous post.

One thing I notice is that every factorization is slightly different.

It depends on the given number in question every time.

You are correct about what you are saying.

But there could be a P174 which is not known in between what could be regarded as the possible factors of RSA-1024.

3 is not a factor of RSA-1024.

P49 = 7455602825647884208337395736200454918783366342657 (a well known factor).

What if you "divide" RSA-1024 with 3 and next start factorizing.

Would that be a better thing to do rather than "dividing" RSA-1024 with the P49 and next doing the same thing?

When I say "divide" I mean the result being returned by means of the software, which is an approximation to the result when it in fact does not do so.

In fact starting with 3, it factorizes down into a P305 which is known.

Using the P49 instead, the answer becomes a P22 which possibly needs reporting, next a C228.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818051403

Apparently I guessed it right here and did so.

The rest of it still needs to be done. I will give it a try later on.

Dubslow · 2016-01-27, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

Your posts have moved above "word salad" level into "I don't know anything about math but I'm asking" level, so I'll bite.

I had noticed that, and became less convinced that it was a bot, but I'm still not entirely sure. If it is a human, it is certainly a stubborn and determined human, if not very good at English and/or incorporating feedback.

wombatman · 2016-01-27, 07:26

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum...postid=1508549

They/he/she/it post there as "musicplayer" and maybe later on as "bluestar" in the same thread.

Basically, someone real but almost completely incoherent.

pinhodecarlos · 2016-01-27, 11:10

He/she/it is constant posting on NFS@Home forum as "speedman".

storflyt32 · 2016-01-27, 13:24

Actually getting some interesting results at times.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818074342

The P369 is slow to factorize when using ecm on this factor.

Also I know from experience that dividing (true division this time) a composite number with another does not necessarily give any results.

http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818074323

On the other side of RSA-2048 from the P369 above.

But "dividing" the C223 from the C1133 of 2^4096 + 1 returns a PRP883 by means of a relatively small factorization, including a P15.

Only found a short time ago and not checked yet,

I will report this factor a later on.

storflyt32 · 2016-01-27, 15:03

Sigh.

In fact I have not mentioned this before, even at Seti@home, where I used to be a regular poster.

At least it needs a break there. Possibly I will return back later.

Right now I do not know.

But I remember from childhood days an old book standing in the shelf of my mother and father which was dealing with the subject of astronomy.

The title may have been something like "... and then it became light".

Only the old age of this book makes not all information that informative, but when it comes to the subject alone, this book definitely was a classic and "to the point".

Right now I do not remember the author, but it was probably translated into my native language (which is not English) already at that time and therefore making it readable.

Astronomy typically is a hobby. Doing the business of number crunching rather becomes more a combination of serious work as well as even fun and pleasure.

One way of possibly having fun with numbers are those rep-digit numbers which sometimes end up being prime, even when quite large in size.

One such prime number or factor ended up in the Factor Database, but apparently I have lost it.

It was some 3200 - 3400 digits in size. For now I have not taken the time trying to find it.

2016-01-26, 23:04	#111
storflyt32 Feb 2013 458₁₀ Posts	Sorry for the late response to this interesting subject, but apparently winter is bringing a couple of problems with it. Is it not the fact that while factoring RSA-768 was a distributed project, it may not have left all the answers in between when it comes to possible results? Really, if I was to try lifting a heavy stone using a rope, would I not change the grip handle by using my hands when one way of doing it is not working out? In the world of factorization of numbers, this means that a given number less than or equal to the composite number of RSA-1024 would more or less have been factorized. But if you use the Factor Database as a way of making a possible comparison here, this is probably not true. Still there happen to be many numbers some 100 - 200 digits in size which have not yet been fully factorized. Because of that, we are once again left to believe that factorizing a number like RSA-768 may only be carried out by using brute force and that there only exist one given solution to such a problem. Is this the correct way of thinking, or should we still believe that the only way of finding a solution to a given problem may only be to divide it into smaller problems and next approach each one of these individually in order to find the correct answer? Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-26 at 23:05

2016-01-27, 00:42	#113
storflyt32 Feb 2013 712₈ Posts	So here is another thing which happened right now. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818016116 This number only had the three small factors, including 2^5 a short while ago. I reported the P10 first here. Next it became the task of finding the P22. But when doing so, the rest of the number had already been fully factorized. It this only an example that the factors which may have been found while factorizing RSA-512 or RSA-768 already may have been added since they might have been found? Edit: Checking in with what I am doing, this one apparently was not that difficult. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-27 at 00:48

2016-01-27, 03:49	#116
storflyt32 Feb 2013 2·229 Posts	The bad thing is when trying using nfs on a number and later returning back to it, the output is exactly the same as a factor command which ended in failure. One option is replacing factor with siqs, but whether or not this is doing any better, it most often hangs with nothing more being listed and then exits, returning nothing when it comes to possible factors. So, if the result is supposed to become a hashtable, typically no final result or factors are being generated at the end, which only results in much wasted time for nothing in return. Edit: Posting the above before reading the previous post. One thing I notice is that every factorization is slightly different. It depends on the given number in question every time. You are correct about what you are saying. But there could be a P174 which is not known in between what could be regarded as the possible factors of RSA-1024. 3 is not a factor of RSA-1024. P49 = 7455602825647884208337395736200454918783366342657 (a well known factor). What if you "divide" RSA-1024 with 3 and next start factorizing. Would that be a better thing to do rather than "dividing" RSA-1024 with the P49 and next doing the same thing? When I say "divide" I mean the result being returned by means of the software, which is an approximation to the result when it in fact does not do so. In fact starting with 3, it factorizes down into a P305 which is known. Using the P49 instead, the answer becomes a P22 which possibly needs reporting, next a C228. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818051403 Apparently I guessed it right here and did so. The rest of it still needs to be done. I will give it a try later on. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-27 at 04:06

2016-01-27, 15:03	#121
storflyt32 Feb 2013 2×229 Posts	Sigh. In fact I have not mentioned this before, even at Seti@home, where I used to be a regular poster. At least it needs a break there. Possibly I will return back later. Right now I do not know. But I remember from childhood days an old book standing in the shelf of my mother and father which was dealing with the subject of astronomy. The title may have been something like "... and then it became light". Only the old age of this book makes not all information that informative, but when it comes to the subject alone, this book definitely was a classic and "to the point". Right now I do not remember the author, but it was probably translated into my native language (which is not English) already at that time and therefore making it readable. Astronomy typically is a hobby. Doing the business of number crunching rather becomes more a combination of serious work as well as even fun and pleasure. One way of possibly having fun with numbers are those rep-digit numbers which sometimes end up being prime, even when quite large in size. One such prime number or factor ended up in the Factor Database, but apparently I have lost it. It was some 3200 - 3400 digits in size. For now I have not taken the time trying to find it. Last fiddled with by storflyt32 on 2016-01-27 at 15:05

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can Pollard Rho cycles be used to find a factor?	wwf	Factoring	26	2013-09-30 04:24
PFGW can't find a small factor.	Arkadiusz	Software	7	2013-02-18 12:43
Chance to find an n-digit factor with ECM	RedGolpe	Factoring	4	2007-03-23 15:24
How much ECM does it take to find a given factor?	geoff	Factoring	5	2004-09-29 20:14
Where I find the best program to it factor keys? I use AMD.	chrow	Factoring	5	2004-02-19 10:15

2016-01-26, 23:20	#112
Xyzzy "Mike" Aug 2002 10000000100000₂ Posts

2016-01-27, 03:28	#114
Uncwilly 6809 > 6502 """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 2³·1,223 Posts	Dear Bot, You make me miss cmd. We should give you Bob's e-mail address.

2016-01-27, 03:32	#115
VBCurtis "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 1001011111101₂ Posts	Your posts have moved above "word salad" level into "I don't know anything about math but I'm asking" level, so I'll bite. Almost every post you make mentions RSA512 or 768 or 1024, usually 1024. You use words like "divides", sometimes even in quotations, when none of the others numbers you mention or link divide any RSA number. I can't figure out why you think these other numbers have any relation whatsoever to RSA1024, but perhaps some day you'll say something that indicates your reasoning, and we'll be able to educate you on what assumptions you have that lead to you doing all this useless stuff. Despite the enormous gulf between your English and mine, I'll try some educating: 1. If you want to factor an RSA number, there is no other number whose factors make it easier to find the factors of the RSA number. Every factor you post of some other number has NOTHING to do with factoring any RSA number. Period. Every time you post about some number nobody else cares about while mentioning RSA-anything, you show total ignorance of the topic. 2. Some numbers do automatically have factors just because of their form. Try reading about "aurifeuillian factorization" for an example. However, the vast majority of candidate numbers do NOT have any obvious factors, and RSA numbers are chosen in a way that ensures they have no algebraic factors, or small factors of any kind. There is no way to look at a number like "13*2^832-1" and know it does or does not have small factors, medium factors, or anything else about it. To factor it, we would use the same tools as any other number: trial division, ECM, then NFS if ECM doesn't find all the factors. The form of the number can help make NFS faster, but it doesn't provide us any factors. In exchange for this wisdom, I ask that you stop blabbering about numbers that divide RSA-1024, or any other RSA number. No number you've put in the factorDB has anything to do with a factor of any RSA number, and any claim otherwise is flatly a misuse of the word "divides" or "factor". If I asked you to find the factors of an 8-digit number without using a computer, how would you do it?

2016-01-27, 07:26	#118
wombatman I moo ablest echo power! May 2013 3351₈ Posts	http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum...postid=1508549 They/he/she/it post there as "musicplayer" and maybe later on as "bluestar" in the same thread. Basically, someone real but almost completely incoherent.

2016-01-27, 11:10	#119
pinhodecarlos "Carlos Pinho" Oct 2011 Milton Keynes, UK 3·17·97 Posts	He/she/it is constant posting on NFS@Home forum as "speedman".

2016-01-27, 13:24	#120
storflyt32 Feb 2013 2·229 Posts	Actually getting some interesting results at times. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818074342 The P369 is slow to factorize when using ecm on this factor. Also I know from experience that dividing (true division this time) a composite number with another does not necessarily give any results. http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000818074323 On the other side of RSA-2048 from the P369 above. But "dividing" the C223 from the C1133 of 2^4096 + 1 returns a PRP883 by means of a relatively small factorization, including a P15. Only found a short time ago and not checked yet, I will report this factor a later on.