Re: A factoring algorithm

Phil Carmody wrote:
>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
>?

Hmm. I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at. I didn't notice any
insults in Bob Silverman's message; maybe I missed it? (Critiquing an
idea shouldn't be confused with insulting the person who came up with
the idea.)

>Do you believe that the OP has not already investigated the field
>reasonably well, and does not understand the prior work?

Ahh, my apologies. I didn't mean to suggest that the OP doesn't
understand the field, although looking over my post again I can see
that I didn't make that very clear. My apologies to the OP; I had not
intended to cast aspersions about his knowledge of the field (which
I suspect vastly exceeds mine). Rather, I was trying to explain a
general phenomenom and help you understand why experts in the field
might not be interested in an O(N^1/4) factoring scheme (say).
Received on Tue Jan 17 16:49:23 2006