>Could a factoring breakthrough happen to convert this exptime problem >to polynomial time? Maybe. I said as much. Is it likely? See >discussions on progress toward proving factoring to be NP-hard (it >hasn't been proved to be such, though it is suspected to be so, i.e., >that there will never be "easy" methods of factoring arbitrary large >numbers). Geee... Since when are problems "proven" to be NP-hard?? Go back to your favorite undergrad institution and take a course on computational complexity again. >You don't appear to be familiar with the literature. I suggest you do >some reading. Yeah, right. And you are familiar.
- Re: why should it be trusted? R. A. Hettinga
- Re: why should it be trusted? Kerry L. Bonin
- Re: why should it be trusted? Tim May
- Re: why should it be trusted? Ray Dillinger
- Re: why should it be trusted? Kerry L. Bonin
- Re: why should it be trusted? Tim May
- Re: why should it be trusted? John Young
- Re: why should it be trusted? jim bell
- Re: why should it be trusted? petro
- Re: why should it be trusted? James A.. Donald
- Re: why should it be trusted? Jordan Dimov
- Re: why should it be trusted? dmolnar
- Re: why should it be trusted? petro
- RE: Re: why should it be trusted? Fisher Mark
- RE: Re: why should it be trusted? Kerry L. Bonin
- Re: why should it be trusted? Kerry L. Bonin
- Re: why should it be trusted? Tim May
- Re: why should it be trusted? Marshall Clow
- Re: Re: why should it be trusted? Neil Johnson