Jump to content
raaaid

to worry the nsa an eficient factorization posibly able to break current encryptions

Recommended Posts

ok you start on 2 and see if its a factor

 

if its not a factor the limit of the tries divides by 2 and you only have to try now odd numbers

 

if 3 its not a factor the limit of tries divides now by 3 and now you try odd numbers not multiple of 3(this is where coding gets tricky)

 

... 

 

but dont code this unless you want the NSA on you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you have just reinvented the Sieve of Eratosthenes, 2200 years too late. And no, it isn't 'efficient', which is why the NSA hasn't tried to hide it. Not that they could if they wanted to, given how well known it is...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow thanks for the hint andy, still and independent feat to be a little be proud about

 

seems erathostenes is to me what edison to homer simpson :)

 

hell isnt erathostenes the guy who either calculated earth circunference with an infinitely away sun or sun distance with a close sun in a flat earth ;)

 

but i know BY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE earth is actually rounded just smaller than they tell us i used this method:

 

 

earth.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am proud of my little neural network algorythm which, given a string made up of an apparently random sequence of words, determines if it is a post by raaaid. It is rather efficient, and hasn't missed yet.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive been looking to the erathostenes sieve and the way its implemented in programs its flawed

 

to find prime numbers<100 you iterate through the 100 numbers so its slow

 

the idea its to find an algorythm that doesnt iterate firs on multiples of two then multiples of 2 and 3 and so on

 

the first is easy its just  i=i+2 its next when the problem becames dificult

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raaaid said:

...the problem becames dificult

 

Which is why encryption using large primes is relatively secure. And why the chances that some random bloke with a limited knowledge of mathematics creating an algorithm to find them quickly enough to break such security is more or less zero. In Eratosthenes' days, it was possible to solve the mathematical problems that were then puzzling them by the use of concepts that any reasonably-educated person might possess. Not any more. The easy stuff has already been done.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

sane people dont try whats regarded as imposible although gotta admitt we the wackos are in great numbers

 

at least i moved from lossless recursive compression to efficient factorization i think im improving :)

 

also setting as objective something imposible means endless fun

Edited by raaaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

edit:

 

ive just been on it with pencil and paper and yeah its too dificult so im gonna give it a different aproach:

 

once i made a program that given a certain succesion it produces the program for such succesion  i think its time to test it with a succesion of prime numbers and see what comes out

 

thugh im afraid ill have to recode it in assembly for power reasons, time to use my basicembly compiler, hey i made my own language mix of assembly and basic and a working compler for it not everybody can say that, the temple OS guy is my example but maybe i wont quit meds like him

Edited by raaaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after a bit learning about encryption i think factions as the nsa vogue for factorization encryption

 

on this way the average joe can not decrypt but they with the quamtum computer can

 

but im still mesmerazied at the holy gray of cryptology:

 

an unbreakable method even by quamtum computers:

 

a random key equal or bigger than the message to code and voila pretty good privacy for the average joe

 

i wonder if they teach this in college

 

al security you ever wanted in th XOR command

 

you can try this in ruby

 

secret="secret0message0i0want0to0code0in0an0unbreakable0way0not0even0with0quamtum0computers0without0the0secret0key"
key="kaffadkjghfkajgnbgmjgrljeghkjgafbvgkghlhjgkshkgdfjthdhkghgdkhgfhgkjhghgghsdjkfhklgfhkjfhsdfjklglgshkjghjkghsgkdjhgdkgh"
secret=secret.to_i(36)
key=key.to_i(36)

#all the secret is XORing the two numbers, as long as the key is trully random and equal in size or bigger than the message not even a quamtum computer and sherlock holmes could break it
codedmessage=secret^key
puts codedmessage.to_s(36)
uncodedmessage=codedmessage^key 
puts uncodedmessage.to_s(36)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSA Darth Vader´s T- moviles ! : baning Huawei & Wikileaks; I recommend you to do not use the Movile-s & continue with the medicine ,  

 

 

Edited by RAY-EU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More crazy raid post to fry my brain.

So how big is the Earth Raid.
im so suprised they all got it wrong and you got it right. 
even tho they have triple the IQ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raaaid said:

after a bit learning about encryption i think factions as the nsa vogue for factorization encryption

 

on this way the average joe can not decrypt but they with the quamtum computer can

 

but im still mesmerazied at the holy gray of cryptology:

 

an unbreakable method even by quamtum computers:

 

a random key equal or bigger than the message to code and voila pretty good privacy for the average joe

 

i wonder if they teach this in college

 

al security you ever wanted in th XOR command

 

you can try this in ruby

 

secret="secret0message0i0want0to0code0in0an0unbreakable0way0not0even0with0quamtum0computers0without0the0secret0key"
key="kaffadkjghfkajgnbgmjgrljeghkjgafbvgkghlhjgkshkgdfjthdhkghgdkhgfhgkjhghgghsdjkfhklgfhkjfhsdfjklglgshkjghjkghsgkdjhgdkgh"
secret=secret.to_i(36)
key=key.to_i(36)

#all the secret is XORing the two numbers, as long as the key is trully random and equal in size or bigger than the message not even a quamtum computer and sherlock holmes could break it
codedmessage=secret^key
puts codedmessage.to_s(36)
uncodedmessage=codedmessage^key 
puts uncodedmessage.to_s(36)

 

Yes Raaaid, they teach that at college. Probably on the first day of cryptology classes. Or at least, something on the same principle. It's known as one-time pad encryption, and is, as you say, unbreakable: provided the key is truly random, and provided you only use the key once. The fundamental problem is that you have to get the key to the message recipient. Securely, and in such a manner that you can be sure that it hasn't been intercepted. And if you have a way to do that, you don't need encryption anyway. Otherwise, the only way to use it is to hand over the key to the recipient in advance, and hope he can keep it hidden from prying eyes.  Which is probably ok if you are only expecting to send a few messages, and are reasonably sure the recipient can keep the key hidden, but useless as a general method for long-term secure communication.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think after a long time i hit into a posibly recursive compression method:

 

i think the pigeon hole principle is valid for LIMITED numbers but it fails for infinite ones

i want to compress the random number 1234567890

 

i add it the tag 777

1234567890777

i divide this number by 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12... and so on till it gives me a result that ends in 777 for example

 

4321777

 

so ive compressed the number 1234567890 into 4321

 

to decompress it i add the tag 777 to the number 4321777

 

and i multiply this number by 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12... untill i hit a number that ends in 777 as 1234567890777

 

ao the number 4321 would uncompress to 1234567890

 

does anybody see a falacy on this simple concept?

 

of course is not gonna work with small numbers but with big numbers i could make awesome compressions if i used a longer tag

 

not very eficient for the current computing power but should work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, raaaid said:

i think the pigeon hole principle is valid for LIMITED numbers but it fails for infinite ones

 

Even if that were true (which needs mathematical proof, rather than just 'thinking'), it would be of no use in data compression, since nobody ever needs to compress an infinite quantity of data.

 

As for your 'simple concept', I'm not going to try to figure out what your algorithm (which you haven'rt explained comprehensibly) is doing, since the pigeon hole principle holds for finite compression algorithms. All of them. There are no generalised methods of data compression which can reversibly compress all instances of data, and there never will be. Not because nobody will ever think of one, but because elementary logic demonstrates conclusively that no such method can exist. Either your algorithm sometimes generates the same output for two or more different numbers, or there are some numbers it can't compress at all. 

 

If you want to become famous for discovering some wonderful new algorithm, I suggest you start looking for one amongst things that are even theoretically possible.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah youre right what im finding so far is that some numbers dont compress even if the method works for the rest

 

my intend is not becoming famous but find a reverse entropy algorythm that produces things that make sense out of chaos and like that communicate with immaterials beings made out of just info

 

do you want anything more inmaterial eternal and spiritual that information?

 

anyway i dont think i can improve the generator of all info algorythm a=a+1

 

and im not very sure just the algorythm a=a-1 defies the pigeon hole principle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...