![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
May 2016
2·34 Posts |
Formula ( 3 Steps ) :
Note : Step 1 : Step 2 : Step 3 : First Way Second Way Example First Way : Step 1 : Step 2 : Step 3 : First Way Second Way --EDIT-- Can I decrease the factorization time with this formula for big numbers? . Last fiddled with by Godzilla on 2017-02-02 at 06:55 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Feb 2016
! North_America
83 Posts |
What is the purpose of the "Second way" if the first one will "It work always (for prime factors similar value or distant)"?
And by looking at it and simplifying it, sqrt(product) < N3 < product. Always. [ N3 = ( sqrt(3)+2 )/ sqrt(3) * sqrt(product) ] which is ~2,1547 *sqrt(product) N4 = product / (~2,15*sqrt(product) )* 3,5 <- which is like (sqrt(product)/~2,15 ) * 3,5 = sqrt prod * ~1,6 <- rough rounding ^- It might be wrong, and a mess, I'm little tired. Also it's not scientific in any way. Ok, so product = 1852927 sqrt is 1361,222612213 N3 by using sqrt(3)s is 2933,027095 N4 by using ...*3,5 is 2211,109645 So what are the factors? (yafu: 0.0090 sec) Last fiddled with by thyw on 2017-02-02 at 10:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
May 2016
2·34 Posts |
Quote:
First Way Second Way Now trying First Way and Second Way , but only First Way is correct I think that for large numbers ( 300 digits ), could to be efficient ...... . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
May 2016
2·34 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts |
Quote:
![]() Let the product be N and its square root be S. Then N1 = sqrt(3330)/50 * S = 1.154...S N2 = S N3 = (1 + sqrt(3330)/50)*S = 2.154...S N4 = 35(3*sqrt(370) - 50)*S/166 = 1.62479...S So basically you have four numbers, all of which are fixed algebraic multiples of the square root of the number you're trying to factor. How does this help? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
May 2016
2·34 Posts |
Quote:
You say it does not work in proportion also for large numbers? P.S. Should be tried with a program . . Last fiddled with by Godzilla on 2017-02-02 at 19:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Aug 2006
3·1,993 Posts |
Let's say I give you a number:
N = 67646988554084448110460372160440713890061829425106624449473216837898618103759093968747 Then I get (rounding down): N1 = 9492406899940630172687271283182766199836725 N2 = 8224778936487256622736720394209992127637443 N3 = 17717185836427886795423991677392758327474168 N4 = 13363547807490383809719662986158762809329777 Knowing this, how do we factor the number N? Or what can be said about the factors of this number? Note that N is not particularly large, and most of the people who post here could factor it without difficulty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
May 2016
2428 Posts |
Quote:
But , I begin by "(N4)" N4-2 , N4-4 , N4-6...(First Way and Second Way) and not by"(N)" N-2 , N-4 , N-6.....! And I bet it will be faster. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Aug 2006
597910 Posts |
A 64-bit integer division takes 73 clocks, and a 286-bit division won't be faster than that. Assuming your clock speed is less than 100 GHz and you have no more than a million CPU cores it would take you more than 10^20 years to factor the number in this fashion. But it should only take a few minutes for SIQS.
Last fiddled with by CRGreathouse on 2017-02-02 at 20:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
May 2016
101000102 Posts |
Quote:
I was thinking in pencil, for example. I do not know how to work the clock. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Aug 2006
3×1,993 Posts |
OK, let me rephrase. Your method, starting from N4 and working down through the odds, would take more than 10^40 divisions, and at one division per second would take 10^25 times the age of the universe to factor the number.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| "Quadratic time factorization" patent | mickfrancis | Factoring | 5 | 2015-02-17 14:27 |
| Decrease in activity? | 10metreh | Aliquot Sequences | 8 | 2010-07-15 14:49 |
| New LLT formula | hoca | Math | 7 | 2007-03-05 17:41 |
| results.txt - Prime95 didn't record time for factorization | ixfd64 | Software | 1 | 2006-03-30 13:39 |
| Does the LL test:s factorization save or waste CPU time? | svempasnake | Software | 42 | 2002-10-24 19:27 |