Re: A factoring algorithm

daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) writes:
> Phil Carmody wrote:
> >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?
>
> Of course it's conceivable that a talented and experienced mind could look
> at the O(N^1/4) algorithm and come up with some fast factoring algorithm.
> But as far as I can see, it's just as conceivable that a talented and
> experienced mind could find a fast factoring algorithm without wasting
> their time on this algorithm. Unless there is some reason to spend time
> reading the O(N^1/4) algorithm -- time that would, I suspect, be better
> spent on other things -- why would anyone bother?

But do you think, in the absense of any real details of the algorithm,
that leaves one with the trichotomy
 1) bother
 2) not bother
 3) insult
or the dichotomy
 1) bother
 2) not bother
?

> If the proposer of the algorithm has some reason to think that this is
> interesting and has promise to lead to a faster factoring algorithm, then
> I hope he will explain. But lacking that, and if Bob Silverman doesn't
> see anything interesting here, well, I know whose word I will trust.

Indeed. Bob Silverman is almost certainly the single most expert opinion
in this field that regularly frequents these parts.

> Note that the burden on the proposer to understand the prior work
> and to make the case that their scheme has some interesting features
> over and above what has been done before. If they don't, well, they
> will be ignored. You might think that is not fair, but that is how
> the system works.

Do you believe that the OP has not already investigated the field
reasonably well, and does not understand the prior work? He appeared
to be familiar with a reasonable gamut of prior algorithms, to the
extent of being able to out-implement some fairly talented
mathematically oriented programmers.

And of course, I believe that that scheme is perfectly fair.

I simply think that the OP has been reacted to by the resident factoring
expert in a way more befitting of a crank or a loon.

I _enjoy_ seeing Bob fly off the handle at cranks and loons. I think
that those who are insist on posting nonsense _should_ be pilloried.
Bob does this perfectly. I even happily quote some of Bob's more
famous put-downs because they're so appropriate. I just think that
he's been unnecessarily dismissive in this particular case.

> (And it works that way for a very good reason: no
> one has unlimited time, and so we have to prioritize. If the proposer
> cannot coherently explain why it is worth my time to study his system,
> then 99% of the time that means that it is indeed not worth my time.)

Which is entirely your choice, one that I would support fully.
As it is Bob's choice too, again, I would support that fully.
If his time is so valuable - why does he seem to go out of his
way to find opportunities to be negative and dismissive?

He's one of the brightest minds in the field, and has the capability
just through the occasional name-drop of a relevant paper or theorem,
or even just mention of a few key words to educate and enhance.
It's a shame that such a mind is investing so much effort in playing
some kind of Harry Enfield-esque "considerably smarter than thou"
sketch.

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