Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.security.pgp.discuss > #141 > unrolled thread
| Started by | barker <name.temporarily.withheld@antispamming.harvard.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-04-14 10:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2012-04-14 22:37 +0100 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 25 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.security.pgp.discuss
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: trying to RECOGNIZE REPUNIT FACTORS BY HAND INSPECTION barker <name.temporarily.withheld@antispamming.harvard.edu> - 2012-04-14 10:40 +0200
Re: trying to RECOGNIZE REPUNIT FACTORS BY HAND INSPECTION quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-14 13:03 -0500
Re: trying to RECOGNIZE REPUNIT FACTORS BY HAND INSPECTION Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-14 12:34 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS barker <name.temporarily.withheld@antispamming.harvard.edu> - 2012-04-15 06:53 +0200
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-15 03:07 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Tonico <Tonicopm@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-15 02:26 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-15 06:18 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-15 06:14 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS barker <name.temporarily.withheld@antispamming.harvard.edu> - 2012-04-16 04:43 +0200
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-15 23:43 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 05:50 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 05:54 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-16 12:21 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 09:52 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-16 14:50 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 12:28 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 04:43 +0200
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS quasi <quasi@null.set> - 2012-04-19 04:08 -0500
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 02:47 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 04:22 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Jan Andres <J@nAndr.es> - 2012-04-19 13:10 +0000
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-19 09:00 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Tonico <Tonicopm@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 10:17 -0700
Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> - 2012-04-16 06:04 -0700
Re: trying to RECOGNIZE REPUNIT FACTORS BY HAND INSPECTION Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2012-04-14 22:37 +0100
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Jan Andres <J@nAndr.es> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-19 13:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS |
| Message-ID | <jmp2rm$dq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #166 |
On 2012-04-19, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 5:47 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: >> On Apr 18, 10:43 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Apr 16, 4:28 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Apr 16, 3:50 pm, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: >> > > > Pubkeybreaker wrote: >> > > > >quasi wrote: >> > > > >> Pubkeybreaker wrote: >> >> > > > >> >All this troll did was divide out some (or all) of these >> > > > >> >known PRIME factors to produce a composite cofactor. >> >> > > > >> So barker fooled me again! Barker 3, quasi 0. >> >> > > > >> He has some ideas about digit patterns, possibly valid, >> > > > >> perhaps interesting, but so far he hasn't shown any >> > > > >> actually new factorizations. >> >> > > > >> As far as trolls go, he's a pretty sneaky one. >> >> > > > >This business about "digit patterns" has some very limited >> > > > >legitimacy. If one tries to put together a factoring >> > > > >algorithm based on "reversing the multiplication process" >> > > > >(which is what looking at digit patterns amounts to), one >> > > > >gets a legitimate way of factoring. The difficulty is that >> > > > >it leads to a set of simultaneous diophantine equations >> > > > >(in O(log N)) variables. Solving this problem is known (see >> > > > >Garey & Johnson) to be NP-Complete. >> >> > > > Challenge to barker: >> >> > > > Produce a partial factorization of some composite repunit >> > > > (in a base of your choice) for which the factorization is >> > > > unpublished and for which it would be infeasible to obtain >> > > > that factorization current factoring algorithms. >> >> > > > Short of that, post a simple example (with much smaller >> > > > numbers) to illustrate how the anomalous digit patterns for >> > > > repunits (definitely an interesting phenomenon) can be used >> > > > to algorithmically factor some repunit. >> >> > > I predict: He can't and won't. He is a fraud. >> >> > Having written all that, I take it all back. I've had email >> > from barker, and he provided enough of one of the 107 digit >> > long factors of R281 for me to know he is legit. Judging by >> > where he sent the email from, he could work for the NSA, and >> > this explains a lot. When they factorize something, they >> > don't usually publish it. >> >> > While I can't be certain of this, he also seems to have found >> > a new result about digit patterns in prime factors of repunits. >> > Don't know about the near-prime factors, though. >> >> > Damnit: sorry. Just because I'm posting from Podunk, Mass., it >> > doesn't mean I have no manners or voted Hussein.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> The above post is a forgery. I did not write it.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Please note. Anyone who has read my posts over the years should > realize > that I do not write in the same style as the forgery. That, plus the forgery is obvious by inspecting the posting's Path: header. The forged posting has exactly the same (somewhat unusual) Path: as barker's postings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-19 09:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS |
| Message-ID | <87789898-9d40-41d7-83a5-d6cb4df1f2ff@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #167 |
On Apr 19, 9:10 am, Jan Andres <J...@nAndr.es> wrote: > On 2012-04-19, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 5:47 am, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: > >> On Apr 18, 10:43 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 16, 4:28 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Apr 16, 3:50 pm, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: > >> > > > Pubkeybreaker wrote: > >> > > > >quasi wrote: > >> > > > >> Pubkeybreaker wrote: > > >> > > > >> >All this troll did was divide out some (or all) of these > >> > > > >> >known PRIME factors to produce a composite cofactor. > > >> > > > >> So barker fooled me again! Barker 3, quasi 0. > > >> > > > >> He has some ideas about digit patterns, possibly valid, > >> > > > >> perhaps interesting, but so far he hasn't shown any > >> > > > >> actually new factorizations. > > >> > > > >> As far as trolls go, he's a pretty sneaky one. > > >> > > > >This business about "digit patterns" has some very limited > >> > > > >legitimacy. If one tries to put together a factoring > >> > > > >algorithm based on "reversing the multiplication process" > >> > > > >(which is what looking at digit patterns amounts to), one > >> > > > >gets a legitimate way of factoring. The difficulty is that > >> > > > >it leads to a set of simultaneous diophantine equations > >> > > > >(in O(log N)) variables. Solving this problem is known (see > >> > > > >Garey & Johnson) to be NP-Complete. > > >> > > > Challenge to barker: > > >> > > > Produce a partial factorization of some composite repunit > >> > > > (in a base of your choice) for which the factorization is > >> > > > unpublished and for which it would be infeasible to obtain > >> > > > that factorization current factoring algorithms. > > >> > > > Short of that, post a simple example (with much smaller > >> > > > numbers) to illustrate how the anomalous digit patterns for > >> > > > repunits (definitely an interesting phenomenon) can be used > >> > > > to algorithmically factor some repunit. > > >> > > I predict: He can't and won't. He is a fraud. > > >> > Having written all that, I take it all back. I've had email > >> > from barker, and he provided enough of one of the 107 digit > >> > long factors of R281 for me to know he is legit. Judging by > >> > where he sent the email from, he could work for the NSA, and > >> > this explains a lot. When they factorize something, they > >> > don't usually publish it. > > >> > While I can't be certain of this, he also seems to have found > >> > a new result about digit patterns in prime factors of repunits. > >> > Don't know about the near-prime factors, though. > > >> > Damnit: sorry. Just because I'm posting from Podunk, Mass., it > >> > doesn't mean I have no manners or voted Hussein.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> The above post is a forgery. I did not write it.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Please note. Anyone who has read my posts over the years should > > realize > > that I do not write in the same style as the forgery. > > That, plus the forgery is obvious by inspecting the posting's Path: > header. The forged posting has exactly the same (somewhat unusual) Path: > as barker's postings.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The fact that 'barker' posted such a forgery says a lot about his lack of character and lack of integrity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tonico <Tonicopm@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-19 10:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS |
| Message-ID | <a3d49bd8-ec9a-4571-8a2e-7bf84f90216d@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #168 |
On Apr 19, 7:00 pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 9:10 am, Jan Andres <J...@nAndr.es> wrote: .................................................................. > > > Please note. Anyone who has read my posts over the years should > > > realize > > > that I do not write in the same style as the forgery. > > > That, plus the forgery is obvious by inspecting the posting's Path: > > header. The forged posting has exactly the same (somewhat unusual) Path: > > as barker's postings.- > The fact that 'barker' posted such a forgery says a lot about his lack > of character and lack of integrity.- Wasn't this OBVIOUS since his first post, where he used his alter ego Pertti's Ghost to praise him(self)?? I could write that I told ya, but instead I just will write that I did tell you. Tonio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-16 06:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: trying to EXAMINE THE DIGITS OF CERTAIN PRIMES FOR PATTERNS |
| Message-ID | <0b56d3a6-c7cf-4b8d-b4f8-573182f6ffea@u7g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153 |
On Apr 15, 10:43 pm, barker <name.temporarily.withh...@antispamming.harvard.edu> wrote: > quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote... > > Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@aol.com> mentioned the repunit 10^281-1, > attributing a property incorrectly to it. You are not only a troll, you are an outright LIAR. I said that 10^281-1 was the smallest number of the form 10^n-1 that had not been FULLY factored. That was and is a correct statement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-04-14 22:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4F89EDFF.828688A@btinternet.com> |
| In reply to | #141 |
barker wrote: > > [...] Therefore I must apply Rule 1: > > Rule 1: Always stop at the first error or anomaly. Go on then. -- When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.security.pgp.discuss
csiph-web