:)
Posted on 2002-05-08 18:14:35 by Brad
hi

please see no aggresivity in my messages =)
just that prime numbers are known since antiquity, so i doubt that you found some new way of seeing and thinking that apply to prime and fit so well the RSAP. both of us know you have no algorithm for efficient factorization. apparently, some people on this board, as brad, are quite convinced that you made some major discoveries. anyway, if you' re point was to make us think on a problem, and try to look at easy and simpliest or obvious solutions, that might be a way of thinking, anyway, life is hard, life is complex =) i don' t think this method would have a real impact on whatever. but well, you just come and say 'i made some major discovery, i won' t tell you how it works, i won' t show you evidence that it work, i will just mumble some illogical disconnected sentences on 11 and 17 and applause anyone that say anything on these numbers', so don' t take us for morons =)
Posted on 2002-05-08 20:20:33 by roy
In net destuctive tecniques it is called trolling.
One can submit bullsh*t math theory (let it be easy for starter)
the others try to prove it wrong.
But the false theory must be submitted with some prove.
No more those "Great Ice" mistick statements :)

Bull**** math theory #1.
Lemma:
(True part)
IF
1
All composite numbers can be present as product of primes.
(Gauss - main arithm theorem)
2
All composite numbers can be present of product of to numbers
each one > 1.
(followed from 1.)
Then
(False part)
3
~One 3d of natural numbers are primes
Proof:
assume we have equaly odd and even numbers
(for integers at any end of monotonic seq numofeven = numofodd(-1) for natural numofeven = numofodd (+1))
(combinatoric bullsh*t part)
True part
Then if we randomly take 2 numbers to make product it has equal chance to be odd and even.
Now let's have a look when product of two numbers is odd and
when it's even
``````
1st_mult 2d_mult    product
odd         odd           odd
even       even          even
even       odd            even
odd         even          even
``````

Convert it to true table let's odd = 1 even = 0
then we can convert the implication into comjunction (and)
(if even = 1 odd = 0 we get disjunction(or))
``````
1st       2nd      res
1           1          1
0           0          0
1           0          0
0           1          0
``````

So only one multiplications of 4 possibilities gives us odd.
but we know that we have same number of odds as even
How the rest odds were produced.
Wow we get to bullsh*t discovery!!! I'm proud to put my
abrivated piece of nothing (c) here!

The rest are PRIMES!
Look again (we extend the tbl to make equal odds and primes)
:
``````
1st           2d       res
?              ?         1
?              ?         1
1              1         1
0              0         0
0              1         0
1              0         0
``````

Now we can see that we have equal number of even and odds
but first two are not product of two numbers > 1.
The only explonation why he have them - they are primes
that can be represented in product only as X=X*1.
there are to cases of such in the table of 6
6\2 = 1\3
So 1 third of all existing integers are PRIMES.
The bullsh*t theory proved.

(Bullsh*t Discovery made By the Svin, under insperation of

I'm sorry for my math English (nobody gave me primary math book in English yet so I could learn math expresions commands in it ;)
Now prove it wrong.
It's very easy for those who has knowlege at least of primary scool.

But I am not going into proving right or wrong of Giovanni statements.
Just 'cause he stated nothing.
Posted on 2002-05-08 22:36:57 by The Svin
That's Bullsh*t :grin:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding :)
Posted on 2002-05-08 22:43:22 by Brad
Of course,:)
But I supplied proof with it. In a way it supposed to talking of
math discoveries.
The question is if you can prove it wrong.
At least it is easier than prove wrong anything that wasn't said.
Posted on 2002-05-08 22:50:11 by The Svin
Alex, too true....

but think about how many similar studies were made about Fermat's.....some led to other things...and some didn't....but most
sharpened skills.....

:) B
Posted on 2002-05-08 22:56:14 by Brad
I don't mind any theory including false ones.
Assume that I didn't state that my theory is false.
People could learn many things checking it math part.
'Cause it has it. And even though at the end they will prove that it is wrong they can make some usefull notions that can lead to something usefull.
But what notions you can make about what wasn't said.
All his theory ended to mistical constant which one can guess.
Nobody know how.
If one can guess the mistical constant - why the one can not guess just one of primes used to make product :)
Then other prime would be just devident of key and guessed prime :)

OK, I'm out :)
I not supposed to be involved in the first place.
Posted on 2002-05-08 23:10:10 by The Svin
Alex,

Yes.... I think I agree.....but, what's puzzling me is that....
we can remove question in the first digits...so we should be able to reduce the equation one digit....if so ... we can solve it... I think...It reminds me of Newtons, original discription of calculas....
the one where he explained how something is geometrically increasing while it is algebraically decreasing....I think ????

Posted on 2002-05-08 23:17:43 by Brad
Giovanni,

Lets try an easy one, like 36853, or 10147....

can you work it through?

B
Posted on 2002-05-08 23:29:40 by Brad
You see, false theory but with math part can lead to something.

As far as I know right conclusion for the above paradox wasn't
published yet, so if you write it you can make publication(I'm not supposed to help you - but good luck)
Hint - the result is very close to known statistics(~5th is p).

As to number of products of possible pares of monotonic part
natural row with even elements the q of all prdct\ prdct of odd
can be described as
F(n)=((2n(n+1)/(n/2(n/2+1))
I don't transformate it for clarity.
n is number of elements in part natural row
in part 2,3,4,5,6,7 n = 6

and the function behaves strange jumping as frog without
obvious correlation.
Posted on 2002-05-08 23:42:16 by The Svin

Your 17's design is impressive. Did you notice that you wrote down a lot of 17's, all the same, while eventually you could vary the 11 to 111 or 23 or something else. Did you notice you do actually multiply always the same number?

Now, when you pass to something more interesting, you'll see more relationships, since a multiple of a number is a sequence of the same number one below the other, and summed. 17 * 5:

17
17
17
17
17
---
??

Sorry I'm too tired to calc this :) Anyway, this is our *vague* constant, which becomes rapidly important as products grow. Let's say you get m which ends by 117809 (lifewire sample), the reverse engined last digit, despite of the 3*3 or 7*7 or 1*9, will be always 9. The second from right is 0, which teorically could come from 1+9, and if it does, the stage obove is the same as the one below, and their endings are 19. Do you see what I mean?

x19
xx19
------
xx09

Hmmm.... an early-out algorithm? To reject a possible pairing of primes by multiplying the first couple bits, then checking them immediately? So no other digits need to be multiplied? Probably not...

You know, I had this book once which sounded suspiciously like it was able to factor stuff easily... There were procedures there for adding and multiplying stuff by hand, faster than inputting them on calculator... and they all had something to do with the digits, the representation of numbers...

I have got an inkling of a suspicion of a possibility that I actually get what you're thinking....
Posted on 2002-05-09 00:17:03 by AmkG
The Svin is right, "Here's my theory, it's you that have to prove me wrong" is religion, not science.

Thanks God I'm atheist..
Posted on 2002-05-09 04:26:10 by Maverick
Hi, people,

today I have to work it all, I've no free time at all. I appreciate a lot your cowork, especially the doubting part. This evening I will print out all new messages, and check them out. I will have to code something, too (which I actually hate), to see what you meant (Svin). My brain is not so binary as it looks like :)

I want to point out some question which came into my mind yesterday. If we had a number ending by 5, usually we could say it will be divisible by 5, because our math experience of relatively small numbers tells us, it will do so. But could we be sure about it, if we have an extremely large number, such as going from my workstation to the sun, using an Arial 8 pt character and tight (no) spacing? No we can't, because something could happen to this number, which is actually out of our rational believes. It could be, for example, be bent into space and time. A sympatic guy told us this some time ago...

Roy pointed out why I would (could) work against my own interests. Science is not bound to personal interests. If someone found a way around his own believes, he will change his own needs and adapt. It might be all wrong, but at least he didn't fright off. But for me it's not even a question of courage. It's just and simply interesting to follow an input. For example, I didn't try many numbers, but some, enough to be sure it works, and I didn't spare myself. But you're right, too, because it is like lo play chess against yourself, you'll win always and you can choose which color will win :)

Giovanni
Posted on 2002-05-09 04:34:32 by sch.jnn
What about cracking a small key then? You can't say no to this.. otherwise a lot of people will really think you're trolling us.

No 2048 bit key.. a small one, just enough to prove yourself half right. Of course possibly not of 4 bit, anybody can do that with his mind.

I want to point out some question which came into my mind yesterday. If we had a number ending by 5, usually we could say it will be divisible by 5, because our math experience of relatively small numbers tells us, it will do so. But could we be sure about it, if we have an extremely large number, such as going from my workstation to the sun, using an Arial 8 pt character and tight (no) spacing? No we can't, because something could happen to this number, which is actually out of our rational believes. It could be, for example, be bent into space and time. A sympatic guy told us this some time ago...

Stai davvero esagerando.. ti vuoi fare prendere per il culo da mezzo mondo?? ;(
A Giova'.. e daje 'n tajo... ;)
Posted on 2002-05-09 04:42:41 by Maverick
Actually, it can be proven algebraically, that a decimal integer that ends in 5 is divisible by 5. It helps to use sigma notation to handle arbitrarily large (but finite) numbers.

The rule doesn't work for hexadecimal integers. (Example: 15h = decimal 21.)
Posted on 2002-05-09 04:59:45 by tenkey
hi

you say maybe a big number ending by 5 (in base 10) could not be divisible by 5.... well, it' s easily provable that it' ll be divisible :
let A this number, (x1)(x2)...(xn)5 be the representation of the number in base 10, then A=5 + (xn)*10 + ... + (x1)*10^n, so we have A= 5*(1 + (xn)*2 + ... + (x1)*2*10^(n-1)), so A is divisible by 5. now, if you don' t even believe that number finishing by 5 can be divisible by 5, because you only tested this properties on some number, consider what you said just after : you said you tested your (strange) factorization algorithm on some numbers, just enough for you to be convinced of the efficiency of it. now, i' m sure you doubt if your algo works for *all* numbers (since your algo seems to rely on strange theory, and division by 5 does not rely on strange theory), so why don' t you show your algorithm (in fact i know why, you just can' t show it, because there is no algorithm =)). anyway, on the question of whether you should release it or not, like svin, i think you should, since we would proove you that it doesn' t works as you want =)
Posted on 2002-05-09 05:02:23 by roy
a number ending by 5, usually we could say it will be divisible by 5, because our math experience of relatively small numbers tells us,

In decimal numeric system?!
I'm shoked.
Go to book store and by good arithmetic book
for primary school.
We know about it not because of our "limited math experience
of little numbers"
This conclusion is not result of "observation" numbers,
but of nature of positioned numeric system.
It doesn't matter how long decimal number is,
the positioned system is sum elements representing by digits
power of radix * q (digit)
were power = zero based position
q = digit.
for example
1234 =
10^3*1 + 10^2*2 + 10^1*3+10^0*4 = 1000 + 200 +30 +4
if x mulptiple y then x*q mulptiple y.
Thus if 10 multiple 5 then any intereger power of 10 multiple 5.
And so with any interger power of 10 * any natural number.
So only question is if 10^0*x is multiple by 5. Where x <=9 (biggest q)
among all 10 possibilities there are only 2: 0 and 5 that multiple by 5
That's why any decimal number with 5 at the end is mulptuple - cause
the rest part is multiple for sure - cause the rest part itself by nature is
created as integer power of 10 and for that only is multiple by 5.

Imaging you have boxes and each box contents 10 tins. And you have
only full boxes.
Do you need to know how many boxes you have to say that all camulating
number of tins is multiple 10?
And 5? And 2?

The same with numbers.
Posted on 2002-05-09 05:14:31 by The Svin
pretending that he coded revolutionary algo but still not very sure about his elementary maths...loool
Posted on 2002-05-09 05:33:58 by DZA
Sheeeeesh!!!! :grin:

Giovanni is merely referencing the Theory of Realitivity......

Look, this thread has proven a couple things,

1.

If you spend all your time trying to factor large numbers with paper and pencil.....you will need to release this energy by creating large colorful discriptions of very simple things...:)

2.

If you don't present large colorful discriptions of very simple things, then it's likely you won't get much response to a partially complete concept....

3. Alex, you got to admit that: some of Giovanni's posts sound a little like some of yours....quote, something like "I'm just trying to get you all to think"....

and All and All, I have much enjoyed The Svin's posts as well as these....

Posted on 2002-05-09 06:34:10 by Brad
Hi,

I must admit I've been a bit angry about some messages, but for my fortune I do have the algo. Here it is: who understands how this works, will understand why 10147 could *not* be solved by assuming endings 1*7. I left over something, which has to be solved by your own, first because I am really off-shore with my work timings, and second because you'll have to do something.

Despite of a huge load of work, I made it as complete as possible, and all the ones who understand *how* this works, pass immediatedly to Level 3 of this game. The others have to be patient until saturday, or even sunday, because the work I didn't do today is a leftover for the following. We have to respect times and that's it. The more patient will, sooner or later, understand how this algo works, and why.

``````

10147

10147	1 * 7; 3 * 9

1 * 7 >>	res	tmp	off
1	7	7
1	17	17
1	27	27
1	37	37
1	47	47	*
1	57	57
1	67	67
1	77	77
1	87	87
1	97	97
1	107	107

01	47	47	*
11	47	517
21	47	987
31	47	1457
41	47	1927
51	47	2397
61	47	2867
71	47	3337
81	47	3807
91	47	4277
101	47	4747	*	//

01	047	47
01	147	147
01	247	247
01	347	347
01	447	447
01	547	547
01	647	647
01	747	747
01	847	847
01	947	947
01	1047	1047	*	//

101	1047	105747		//

101	147	4747
101	247	24947		//

91	047	4277
91	147	13377		//

81	047	3807
81	147	11907		//

71	047	3337
71	147	10437		//

61	047	2867
61	147	8967	*
61	247	15067		//

61	147	8967
161	147	23667		//

51	047	2397	*
51	147	7497	*
51	247	12597		//

51	047	2397	*
151	047	7097	*
251	047	11797		//

51	1047	2397
51	2047	104397		//

151	047	7097
151	1047	158097		//

41	047	1927	*
41	147	6027	*
41	247	10127	*
41	347	14227		//

041	047	1927	*
141	047	6627	*
241	047	11327		//

041	047	1927
041	1047	42927		//

141	047	6627
141	1047	147627		//

041	147	6027
141	147	20727		//

041	247	10127
141	247	34827		//

31	047	1457	*
31	147	4557	*
31	247	7657	*
31	347	10757		//

31	047	1457	*
131	047	6157	*
231	047	10857		//

031	047	1457
131	1047	32457		//

131	047	6157
131	1047	137157		//

031	147	4557
131	147	19257		//

031	247	7657
131	247	32357		//

21	047	987	*
21	147	3087	*
21	247	5187	*
21	347	7287	*
21	447	9387	*
21	547	11487		//

021	047	987
121	047	5687	*
221	047	10387		//

121	047	5687
121	1047	126687		//

021	147	3087
121	147	17787		//

021	247	5187
121	247	29887		//

021	347	7287
121	347	41987		//

021	447	9387
121	447	54087		//

11	047	517	*
11	147	1617	*
11	247	2717	*
11	347	3817	*
11	447	4917	*
11	547	6017	*
11	647	7117	*
11	747	8217	*
11	847	9317	*
11	947	10417		//

011	047	517	*
111	047	5217	*
211	047	9917	*
311	047	14617		//

011	047	517
011	1047	11517		//

111	047	5217
111	1047	116217		//

211	047	9917
211	1047	220917		//

---

01	37	37	*
11	37	407		//
21	37	777		//
31	37	1147	*
41	37	1517	*
51	37	1887		//
61	37	2257		//
71	37	2627		//
81	37	2997		//
91	37	3367		//
101	37	3737		//

01	137	137	*
01	237	237	*
01	337	337	*
01	437	437	*
01	537	537	*
01	637	637	*
01	737	737	*
01	837	837	*
01	937	937	*
01	1037	1037	*

101	137	13837	//

---

01	27	27	*
11	27	297		//
21	27	567		//
31	27	837		//
41	27	1107		//
51	27	1377		//
61	27	1647	*
71	27	1917		//
81	27	2187		//
91	27	2457		//
101	27	2727		//

01	127	127	*
01	227	227	*
01	327	327	*
01	427	427	*
01	527	527	*
01	627	627	*
01	727	727	*
01	827	827	*
01	927	927	*
01	1027	1027	*

``````

Giovanni

PS: Please be a little more patient! I do my best but sometimes I am off. Tomorrow I am surely off at all (at least you may tell what you want :) )

PATIENT TASKS: Find out where it is best to cut off. In some places the listings are extremely extended, even if not necessary. Where? Why? Did you see what happens? What relationship is there to the stupid 17 * 11 excercise?
Posted on 2002-05-09 11:20:08 by sch.jnn