At 10:30 AM 11/5/99 +, Daniel Grace wrote:
> > Trial factorization isn't polynomial in the number bits of the number.
>
>I did not say it was.
You said:
> > At 12:33 AM 11/5/99 +, Daniel Grace wrote:
> > >"Polynomial?"
> > >
> > >I think and please correct if I am wrong that trial facto
> At 12:33 AM 11/5/99 +, Daniel Grace wrote:>
>"Polynomial?"> >> >I think and please correct if I am
wrong that trial factorisation> >using long division requires
O(sqrt(n)*log(n)) operations.>
> Jud McCranie wrote :> It means that it is a polynomial function
of the number of bits in >
At 12:33 AM 11/5/99 +, Daniel Grace wrote:
>"Polynomial?"
>
>I think and please correct if I am wrong that trial factorisation
>using long division requires O(sqrt(n)*log(n)) operations.
It means that it is a polynomial function of the number of bits in
n. Trial factorization isn't polynomi
> "Polynomial?"
>
> I think and please correct if I am wrong that trial factorisation
> using long division requires O(sqrt(n)*log(n)) operations.
> sqrt(n)*log(n) is polynomial in n e.g. it is less than n^2.
> Presumably when measuring the order of factorisation
> algorithms you guys use n ~ e^x
"Polynomial?"
I think and please correct if I am wrong that trial
factorisation
using long division
requires O(sqrt(n)*log(n)) operations.
sqrt(n)*log(n) is polynomial in n e.g. it is less than
n^2.
Presumably when measuring the order of
factorisation
algorithms you guys use n ~ e^x and th
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 12:57:13PM -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>These guys are snake-oil vendors. I don't know what type of prime test
>they are claiming to have or not have but from my exposure to their crypto
>claims I wouldn't trust anything from them without proof.
Remember that snak
