Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primorial sieve

Primorial sieve

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:OR: the unique source is not published and consists of vague consideration on a supposed algorithm that is not even described. D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. I did also look for this in a couple of textbooks on computational number theory and in the mentioned Scottish Book, and did not find it in either. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to Russ Woodroofe — The algorithm is a complete novelty, NOW-alijka (in Polish. It means fresh, spring vegetables eaten for the first time this year...), in Greek "εὐαγγέλιον", while in the Scottish Book the last entries were made by an officer of the Red Army entering Poland, in 1939, so you know...

BaSzRafael (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BaSzRafael, you are describing exactly original research. Wikipedia does not host original research, per WP:NOR. (That is what journals are for.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not remotely encyclopedic, woolly, rambling, uncited, and per the above actually unciteable, i.e. WP:OR. Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not notable"?

The algorithm blows RSA to smithereens, it will factorize 500-digit numbers (decimal) at lightning speed, almost in real time (on a very "fancy", thousand-core computer, of course).

"Not notable" — funny, really... BaSzRafael (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be unpublished original research based on a web page dated (in its source code) from yesterday. The article creator's pseudonym BaSzRafael bears some resemblance to the author name (in the web page source code) Rafael Szulc, suggesting that they may be the same person. The edit summary in the creating edit, "a completely new topic", could be interpreted as a statement that this is made up, and as a rationale for a WP:CSD#A11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David — what, in the face of paragraphs and judges — is TRUTH?

Because it clearly does NOT matter at all whether an algorithm is TRUE, whether it WORKS, whether it does what it says it does.

Well, there is clearly a war going on (here too). To maintain the primacy of the RSA algorithm. As I wrote above to colleague C. Chap , the "Primorial Riddle" algorithm blows RSA to dust, and powder!

"The first casualty when war comes is truth"

[ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hiram_Johnson ] BaSzRafael (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
„Primorial Riddle” - my search showed that the name "Primorial Sieve" is already taken... BaSzRafael (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something that somebody, most likely the page creator, made up one day. No objection to a speedy per WP:CSD#A11. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to D.Lazard

The algorithm IS described!

0. (Ground floor) We divide the number under study by the highest primorial #p — which "fills" no more than 100% of the integer variable used, which has a limited capacity (number of digits).

a) We check the remainder of the division, whether it is a prime number (this is only "on the ground floor"!), but necessarily greater than "p". This case signals that "a" CAN BE a prime number.

b) Otherwise, the number under study "a" is a composite number, and we have one of its divisors (or even two! — at least...)

1. We abandon the use of the primorial function, and from now on in the subsequent floors we use its "nephew": the Van function, choosing its upper argument so that the obtained product of subsequent prime numbers, starting from the lower argument and ending with the upper one — does not exceed the "capacity" of the variable used. The lower argument is the "ceiling" of the previous floor.

2. We check whether the remainder obtained from the division of "a" by #p — is a number relatively prime to "b", and to #p.

a) If so — then "a" CAN BE a prime number

b) If it has common divisors (and THEN there will be at least two of them!) then it is a composite number, and we have its divisors.

3. We loop the procedure from point 2 — that is, we define subsequent values for the lower argument (the "floor" of the Van function) and the upper argument (its "ceiling").

4. Each time we find any divisors of the tested number "a" — we divide it by them, and we only subject the RESULT of this division to further factorization.

5. We proceed in this way until we obtain ALL divisors of the composite number

6. If we do not find any, then they... do not exist! And the number "a" is a prime number, and with 100% CERTAINTY.

What do you not understand? After all, the algorithm is as simple as building a flail... BaSzRafael (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for the discussion whether the article must be deleted, not for claifying its technical content. If this content may be clarified, this must be done by editing the article, not here.

This being said, the above description is too vague for allowing to verify whether the algorithn is correct and, if it is correct, whether it is more efficient that the existing algorithms. In any case, it seeems to require to know all primes below a given bound, which should made it useless for the number sizes for which factorization is difficult.

Again, this is not to Wikipedia editors to check these things. This is for this reason that reliable WP:secondary sources are required. Up to now, no such sources are available D.Lazard (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer:

clear, simple and understandable.

I also thank:

all the participants of the discussion, even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry:

- Well, that's a shame, but I understand that Wikipedia is governed by certain indisputable laws, and I have to accept them, even if I don't like them and they act contrary to my expectations.

I also thank you for the fact that even though not a single voice was raised in defense of the entry, it has not been removed yet, but is publicly available and everyone can also express their opinion on it.

You have devoted your time to me, reading the text and then commenting on it - for which I am grateful. And I would be even more grateful if I received a handful of comments on what to do so that the text remains on Wikipedia. What should be improved in it, what should be improved?

Finally, I would like to pass on the optimistic message that I received from both Mikołajeks and the rest of the team:

- according to the new version, still warm like those buns straight from the bakery, they state that RSA is not threatened, because their belief that the algorithm presented here dismantles RSA - was a mistake, and it resulted from the fact that they did not take into account certain things that simply did not exist earlier in the developed theory.

If suddenly, overnight, encryption became ineffective, civilization would suffer irreversible losses. It would be simply a tragedy, no one would be safe, and certainly not the Internet.

BaSzRafael (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSA is not threatened because, as this article states, this method (if it is an improvement) improves on trial division by using multiplications instead of divisions, achieving only the speedup one would obtain from the relative timing of those two operations, a constant factor. Other factorization methods are far faster, faster than trial divisions by factors that grow very quickly as the numbers involved get large. Such non-constant speedups, even better than the ones already known, would be needed to threaten RSA. Compared to that, the difference between multiplication and division is trivial. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dziękuję za wyjaśnienia, przydadzą się. BaSzRafael (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:OR and clearly well past WP:SNOW at this point as well PianoDan (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]