Re: A factoring algorithm

daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) writes:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> >"Pubkeybreaker" <Robert_silverman@raytheon.com> writes:
> >> The world does not need another O(N^1/4) algorithm.
> >
> >It also doesn't need knee-jerk gainsayers.
> >
> >If you'd like to get some stuff of your chest, did the world
> >need Dixon's algorithm? Or Lehman's? Anyone more recent that
> >you'd like to condescendingly trash at the same time, while
> >you're at it?
>
> I'm with Bob. At the time, yes, the world needed Dixon's algorithm,
> both because it had some new ideas and an interesting runtime. But as
> for right now? Nope, the world wouldn't need another Dixon's algorithm,
> and it wouldn't need another O(N^1/4) algorithm, unless it had some very
> interesting new ideas.
>
> In other words, what was novel 50 years ago is not the same as what
> is novel today. And the state of the art in factoring is not the same
> today as it once was.

Can you conceive of the possibility that one of the more
talented and experienced minds in the field could examine
a novel O(n^(1/4)) algorithm, and recognise something that
has been missed by the amateur who originated the algorithm,
and by doing so reduce its complexity in a significant way?

If not, then you're insulting the experienced minds in the
field as much as the OP.

Of course, the only way to get someone experienced in the
field to have a look at the algorithm is to make it public.
I wouldn't expect any effort to be expended by said experts
before then. Their precious time can also be saved by _not_
wasting it writing knee-jerk dismissals.

Phil

-- 
What is it: is man only a blunder of God, or God only a blunder of man?
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Twilight of the Gods