Giovanni, I'll have it coded shortly - just for 32-bit numbers until the pruning algo has been worked out, then I'll switch to BigInt's.
Posted on 2002-05-09 11:37:52 by bitRAKE
Hi people,

it's surprising how well my little theorem about the ending decimal 5 number has involved you. Actually, only Brad got the right answer. It has been a good testing for knowing which people are interested into mathematics and have thought in advance about some realistic events which happen all days to us, but we just don't think about them (a PC's memory wrap for example). I've involved you into another theorem which has simular characteristics, and I am sure you try now to prove it's wrong. Naturally it could be wrong if you look at it as if it was a Relative problem, and observing time and space as an undivisible but independant couple of units, many things may happen to a 10^1E1000000 Bit key. For example, it could change in size (nothing new with W*nd*ws). Or else, it could be varied before you arrive at the most significant digit. So all what you get is a partial result, and when you retry, you may get a different partial result. But it could be too, that you won't even reach the most significant digit, because of some unreasonable process it wrapped around and attached itself to the beginning. Just as a circle. Did you know that a drawn circle has a beginning but no end? And a pin-point in the middle :)

You know, sometimes I have a break and think about unreasonable problems, just for fun. There was one - half of the world laughed after when he tried to explain his theory - now is a champion, and only very few people in this world do actually understand what he meant. I'm not one of these, but I try. Many of you will know him from physics, and hate his simple formulas which hide thousands of assumptions, which are based on other assumptions, but each of them very clever.

Now I've got you to do some practice, I feel much relaxed, because I'm sure you've got the idea. There is a strange silence in the classroom :) Please don't forget you're multiplying always the same number. As recursion grows, this reallity grows too. If you forget it, you will mess it all up and have to restart.

A special thank to Maverick, who had the really good idea to start from a dead simple key. This is what I call coworking. It does not matter how easy a proposal is, at least it is an idea.

People are talking about a lot of books they read. I don't read many books any more, after I literally read over 5000 volumes about mathematics, physics and chimics, ca. 27 years ago. So I hardly can remember the funny guy's name I like so much. He is the ideal copy of mine, even when he was a much better brain than me. But we have some things in common, we aren't proud of our studies in the past, we never trust too much our suspiciously simple research results, and we have a great humour, especially about ourselves. We involve ourselves in tremendous cycles of thoughts, with multiple nested recursive carry rollbacks (I like this phrase) and are able to bring people to rage, with ease. We are misunderstood, ignored, laughed at, but we love our studies. We try to do our jobs as well as possible, and try not to loose ourselves by using terms we don't understand. We are capable to write endless and stupid listings down to prove our theory right or wrong, and we become angry when people want a formula a = b + c which doesn't exist. But don't think I believe to be him. I am on my own and enjoy my life at the best.

Have a nice time, and look at the whole stuff as if it was just an extremely unconventional way to reverse engineer products. I've been today with some mediocre programmers like me, who estimated the calculation time by using a professional BN Library. They are into heavy calc's by now. I did do some calc's on that argument, and it wasn't too different. Guess what?

Even when I was stressed today, I am glad it's out. At least I'll sleep a little bit deeper than the least days, and spend much less on my telephone bills. And since I told you all but some special tricks for keeping the stages as low as possible, I may turn happily back to what I initially wanted: telling how it works, to all of the (still) curious. So maybe we could work out even a better way, or make it worse :)

Svin: If you have some free time left, and interested into, could you please tell me for what could be used your formula f(n)=((2n(n+1)/(n/2(n/2+1))? Could it become part of a random seed generator?

Giovanni

PS: Put m = [(p+q)/2]. With p < q, we have 0 <= m - SQRT(n) <= [((q-p)^2)/(8p)]. Since p = m +/- SQRT[(m^2-n)], the primes p and q can be easily determined if the difference p-q is small (RSA Labs). They forgot about n :)
Posted on 2002-05-09 16:25:57 by sch.jnn
I didn't like myself whenever I felt I had to put some of my crap philosophy into my technical posts but.. after reading your post, pal.. I'll really stop being philosophic. It's just mental masturbation.

Or if you solve a *simple*, *short* but *reasonable* key, you'll get all of my respect. And not only mine, that's for sure. That even if you will never be able to solve the really big challenges, I will respect you much even if you prove yourself only half right at the end, and the rest was only excessive optimism. If a 2048bit key takes you 30 days, a 64bit key will take you much less. *SO* *SIMPLY* *DO* IT*.
But please stop abusing Albert Einstein's name.. he was much more concrete than you make him seem from your posts.
Posted on 2002-05-09 16:59:51 by Maverick

I didn't like myself whenever I felt I had to put some of my crap philosophy into my technical posts but.. after reading your post, pal.. I'll really stop being philosophic. It's just mental masturbation.

Or if you solve a *simple*, *short* but *reasonable* key, you'll get all of my respect. And not only mine, that's for sure. That even if you will never be able to solve the really big challenges, I will respect you much even if you prove yourself only half right at the end, and the rest was only excessive optimism. If a 2048bit key takes you 30 days, a 64bit key will take you much less. *SO* *SIMPLY* *DO* IT*.
But please stop abusing Albert Einstein's name.. he was much more concrete than you make him seem from your posts.

Some people are never content. You seem to be one of them. You wanted a solution, a formula, a way. Here it was. If you want to run, please do it. Now you have all you need. Really all of it. And I could nothing do to convince you to believe me, and I won't try it even. In this world we are 5 mrd and passed individuals, and there is no reason why to fight just with me. If you don't like me, my way to talk, to think and to do, it's basically not my problem. I'm not going to justify any of my choices, and if the materia doesn't interest you, you may go and see if one of the other threads are more interesting to you.

I don't abuse anybody's name or person. If I feel affinate, its a truth, at least mine. BTW, did you know personally Einstein? I didn't, but all what I've heared from him was extremely important to all of my businesses, to my life style, and the way to look at common problems and which relationships are presently to complex problems. I wonder if you ever wished to be like somebody. If not, this is an experience missing and you should try it. So you may see how small you're in reallity.

If you're upset because I'm using a stupid's algo for a high tech Eccliptic Curve RSA modula, I do understand that. I would be upset too. But I love people who show me that solutions aren't made always as we wish. And Einstein has been one of these.

Anyway, this is the last message exchange of this kind. If people want to abuse of my person, prego, accomodatevi. I suppose there are more interesting things to do than talk about unpleasant things, and if you ever happen to be a teacher, please remember it needs fun even for a simple 1*1 table.

And what's about your 64 Bit key, you're now able to check it out on yourself, if you wish. If not, I'm not going to waste my time wit the over 30 samples arrived by mail, which will employ me till my 45th bithday. Instead I'll do some holydays, eventually. I will *not* write a program for this algo, since other people are more into it, and I'm sure all of the missing here are coding. And some more we never heared about.

I am sorry to be angry. But I am.

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-09 17:56:12 by sch.jnn
Giovanni, do your algo in binary. :)
95 = 1011111                   101

19 = 10011 10011 101
5 = 101 10011 101
------- -------
95 = 1011111 1011111

187 = 10111011 10001
17 = 10001 10001 1011
11 = 1011 10001 1011
-------- --------
10111011 10111011

437 = 110110101 10011
23 = 10111 10011 10111
19 = 10011 10011 10111
10011 10111
--------- ---------
110110101 110110101
Why don't you tell me what you see?
Posted on 2002-05-09 18:50:37 by bitRAKE
Peace. I see you've a lot of time to dedicate to posting.. I don't have it, so good luck.
I wonder if you ever wished to be like somebody. If not, this is an experience missing and you should try it. So you may see how small you're in reallity.
I'm small but I like to be myself, because I *am* myself, and not somebody else.

I never abused of you in any way, I think that who knows me can testimony I'm very ungenerous of gratuitous, personal attacks. I rather think you abused of this assembly forum in many ways.. but it's not my problem. Good luck playing games with people on the forum.. as long as others are happy with it, I've got no problem as well.

If you are angry is because other people may get upset when you use 100000+ words to say something that requires 10, maybe 100 words, expecially because after all the friendship and relaxed talking (e.g. on "The Heap"), this is an assembly forum, and this zone specifically is dedicated to algorithms and assembly source code. But I'm not a picky person, so what..

I've just read you've posted something that appears as an algorithm (I gave a quick look, time is the thing I lack most, unfortunately), if others will confirm that it is, and it works, then of course my understandable and justified curiosity to see if after those 100000 words there's substance underneath will possibly be satisfied by somebody else.. it's ok with little me.

And since you gave me life lessons, let me do the same: *trying* to be concise is a great quality, and a sign of respect towards others' time and communication resources. For the rest, I wish you full success.. but IMHO you should be a little better tuned to your audience. I hope you don't take that as an offence, it's just a advice. Delete it if you wish.

Be well.
Posted on 2002-05-09 19:08:32 by Maverick
Giovanni,

I almost wish to apologize for some of the comments made here.....but I am new here too...and it is not my place....

much easier for me to see angry comments as 'inexperienced release of frustration, and lack of control'.....:)

Maverick,

".....*trying* to be concise is a great quality, and a sign of respect towards others...."

If the problem gets solved and posted by anyone....you will read the simple and concise explanation, maybe understand it, maybe not......but definately not, appreciate any rewards......how-ever if
you participated and studied with the development of the solution, you would be gifted with the knowledge and satisfaction that you were involved in a great discovery at the least.....

Giovanni, is truly trying to include the board with these potential rewards/gifts.....and many in frustration, bite the hand?????

Giovanni,

Thank you for "10147" demo. I see you are fliping from one side/factor to the other....and I think I can see a pattern developing????.....I have been/will be extremely busy until monday...maybe bitRAKE will catch it, before then.....

Posted on 2002-05-09 21:53:55 by Brad
Ok enough is enough...

I'm ashamed at some of the members of this board...

I do agree that a sample of something other than a philosophical view of this issue may be in order (since it is posted in Algo-and-Source forum) -- But I'm upset by some of the members attacks of sch.jnn.

I don't remember him gloating about his work...
I don't remember him throwing it into anyone's faces...
I don't remember him promising he'd share his project...

Although the trend has been for an "open" forum of ideas and programs -- It isn't required...

I don't think this should continue... Maybe next time I'll bring up the threads where other memebrs have been rude, gloating or not sharing (because they want to keep their knowledge to themselves).

Do I believe he can do it... Doesn't matter
Do I believe he isn't giving much away... Doesn't matter
Do I believe he doesn't want to share his knowledge... Doesn't matter

What I does matter is that respect must ***ALWAYS*** be shown to other members... You have to understand that there is a person with feeling and emotions on the other side of the screen...

Remember that and we'll all get along just fine...

Sliver
Posted on 2002-05-09 23:43:33 by Sliver
Could it become part of a random seed generator?

It seems it could in some conditions. Though range space limits
are tight
I posted it as one hint to prove wrong my bullsh*t math theory #1.
If you really interested and care reread it maybe it 'll help.
There are detailed comment of what is what. It's relaition of
number all products by 2 element in desribed there array to and
products of pares of odd elements of the same array.
Shows that it is unstable.
Posted on 2002-05-10 01:52:42 by The Svin
I can understand the frustration that some members have expressed because the original claim has not been backed up with a working technique.

If it had been introduced as an idea or a topic of discussion about how to find the weakness in the RSA algorithm, I imagine the respondses would have been different but to date there has been a lot of noise and NO action.

Perhaps its time to put up or shut up.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2002-05-10 03:21:35 by hutch--
Sliver,
You're getting too much upset. At the begin many people were rude with Giovanni and I was upset about it, and many times I had to force myself not to polemize about this behaviour. But then, post after post, I think that Giovanni went too far with his games. There was nothing "extreme" in my posts about this towards him, if it builded up it was because of his replies which, for me, were making things even worse in the direction of "maybe he's fooling people and wasting their time with false promises", so to speak.

What did I do of so terrible? Telling him I didn't like the use he did of Einstein's image? I thought that and still think it.. I just don't understand what's so bad about saying it. I've read much about Einstein and I sure didn't see the same "style" here in this long and often off-topic (on Algorithms and Source Code) thread. Let's leave Einstein where he belongs. As if Einstein could be abused and would personally agree that a big number ending with 5 may not be divisible by 5.. let's get serious!!!

But what pisses me off most of your anger is the following, which I see possibly targeted at me:

<< Maybe next time I'll bring up the threads where other memebrs have been rude, gloating or not sharing (because they want to keep their knowledge to themselves). >>

To share is NOT a duty, it's not for me as it's not for Giovanni. Did I ever say the opposite???

Let me close with Hutch's words:

<< If it had been introduced as an idea or a topic of discussion about how to find the weakness in the RSA algorithm, I imagine the respondses would have been different but to date there has been a lot of noise and NO action. >>

So considering the extreme seriousness of an affirmation like "I broke the RSA, any length, and it's damn easy to do it", but then not seeing any fact backing this up (neither a small key, but only "You reached Game Level 3") I think I have the f*cking right to be a bit disappointed, considering that time doesn't grows on trees, without getting flamed by you because I don't share (and never promise to, this is the difference) what gives me bread.. or simply just PROVE it to then not share anyway (about which I certainly never blamed anybody). I never told him to share anything.. I kindly asked him to give a very, half, proof of his methods to get some serious people really involved instead of making them feel they're getting fooled and are simply wasting their precious time, with false claims (which, unless they're proven otherwise, remain that). All I got in response was that a big number that ends with 5 may not be divisible by 5 anyway, and this using Einstein's serious research work as support. Blah. To me this is even more off-topic and even more "bad", and I replyed. But we're gonna continue this circle forever then.

And if I've been rude (and am being now towards you) it's always in response to another attack. Now find me a post where I started a deliberate and unrespectful attack towards somebody that didn't do that previously to me. You can't find any single post that does it.

You have no right to blame me if I (or anybody else) don't share our personal (and not found on books) knowledge.
Unless you want to share your income with us as well?

I can't blame though those that feel fooled, unless some proof (not the algorithm, I repeat) is given, after all this noise. Or let's move this to The Crusades or to The Heap.

PS: also, among those "unrespectful posts against Giovanni" you mentioned I recall also this one:

On a side note:
I've just proved that god really does exist and figured it out with the use of a pencil, paper and a stick of chewing gum... Should I publish?
Which was written by you, Sliver.

Enough said.
Posted on 2002-05-10 05:10:59 by Maverick
As if Einstein could be abused and would personally agree that a big number ending with 5 may not be divisible by 5.. let's get serious!!!

?????? Maverick, part of Einstein's Theory is that the number system becomes unstable when reaching large numbers, .....

Added: to take this further, there is also similar proof that there exists no counting base that can make a complete mathematical discription.... (can't remember who, Gauss ?)

B
Posted on 2002-05-10 06:29:47 by Brad
That's ok, but does it mean that a big number ending with 5 may not be divisible by 5?
Posted on 2002-05-10 06:45:33 by Maverick
Originally posted by Sliver
I do agree that a sample of something other than a philosophical view of this issue may be in order (since it is posted in Algo-and-Source forum) -- But I'm upset by some of the members attacks of sch.jnn.
At this point I don't know if Giovanni has something or not, but I do think I understand what he is trying to do and I am willing to put in the effort to understand more. I have been working on the problem from both a mathematical direction and the ASM coding direction. I will post both. (Be patient - I am moving right now as well!)
Posted on 2002-05-10 07:00:42 by bitRAKE
"does it mean that a big number ending with 5 may not be divisible by 5?"

Yes, but the numbers would have to be way,way bigger that any computer can possibly address....approaching infinity....

Giovanni, was just having fun....and he got cursed for it ??????

B
Posted on 2002-05-10 07:23:47 by Brad
Giovanni,

If its any consolation, I think everyone who has posted to this board has been cursed once or twice, or more....

:grin:
Posted on 2002-05-10 07:36:22 by Brad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: "does it mean that a big number ending with 5 may not be divisible by 5?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but the numbers would have to be way,way bigger that any computer can possibly address....approaching infinity....
Sorry but that makes no sense to me, at all. In the specified conditions of the above example, a number is a number, period.
Anyway, can you prove it? IIRC The Svin has already proved the opposite. In case you can't prove it, do you think it's rude to point out that the affirmation is ridicolous, even more if one tryes to exploit Special Relativity (which instead is a damn serious thing) to support it?
I think that science is a serious and verifyable thing, and that's just what makes it different from e.g. astrology or black magic or other astral things as superstition or religion.

Is it really rude to affirm this?
Posted on 2002-05-10 07:44:35 by Maverick

Giovanni,

If its any consolation, I think everyone who has posted to this board has been cursed once or twice, or more....

:grin:
I've been cursed several times and in a worse way, with personal insults, etc.. (when I just joined this forum there has been a flamewar with X-Calibre, for example, but I never thrown gasoline on the fire, I did rather the opposite).. and I (and others) was/were attacked for much less. So please let's not play the victims game now, that Giovanni's behaviour has been questionable from several points of view. That's IMHO the cause of the critics he got. You don't have to disclose anything, but some serious affirmations and claims need to be slightly backed up at least, otherwise others have the right to complain and seriously doubt, even to the point of suspecting he is playing games with us in the sense of trying to fool us. Of course I don't mean he has to solve the 100 keys he got in email.. just one would have been (for me at least) much more than sufficient. I don't understand the victimism now, though. Everybody is responsible of his own affirmations and giant claims.
Posted on 2002-05-10 07:49:25 by Maverick
I agree, lets forget and move forward....

Giovanni, has given us a demonstration of his concept, with the factoring 10147 start ......

I see two possibilities.... A) what Giovanni, has given us here, is what he has..... and he needs help moving it forward....or

B) Giovanni, has given us a step....to grasp a concept, before moving to the next...(this was hinted at with Game Three).....

I personally like his presentation, I want to fully understand and be able to derive proofs from stratch......not just to memorise a solution......Giovanni, in the beginning, said that he wanted help...
and he doesn't have it all 100% worked out....

Posted on 2002-05-10 08:07:41 by Brad
Can we use this notation for discussion:
X * Y = Z ; X and Y are prime

v = BASE
vn = BASE^n

X = x0*v0 + x1*v1 + ... + x(n-1)*v(n-1) + xn*vn
Y = y0*v0 + y1*v1 + ... + y(m-1)*v(m-1) + ym*vm

Z = X * Y
Z = z0*v0 + z1*v1 + ... + z(p-1)*v(p-1) + zp*vp

W(z,r) = z0*v0 + z1*v1 + ... + z(r-1)*v(r-1) + zr*vr
; for r[0,p]

It can be proven that for each r:
W(z,r) is only dependant on W(x,r) and w(y,r)

; {} ? {} : {} if/then/else notation from C

v=2 ?
p = n+m+1
x0=y0=z0=xn=ym=zp=1
z1=0 ?
x1=y1
z2=0 ?
x1=y1=0
:
x1=y1=1
:
x1 <> y1
This way we can intelligently talk about the digits of the numbers X, Y and Z. Just state the v you are using and your findings.
Posted on 2002-05-10 09:04:36 by bitRAKE