Thanks

Dan Young ]]>

One thing I don't unstande is you have a value and you divided by 11 then the next prime down and the next prime up should if added equal value.

Overview need someone that understand maths.

The foumla of swapping digits after the decimal point stopped at 11 above and below were primes.

Say a exicise if you find it easy.]]>

You've done heroic work, wading into the thicket of Grant's claims.

There seems no shred of evidence, that he has made any innovation relevant to crypto -- or as far as I can tell, that there is any new discovery at all.

Rising above the details of the technical-sounding nonsense, is the implication that any advance in the "prediction" of primes would matter to cryptography.

Mathematical techniques of testing for primality have long been more than adequate for cryptographic purposes. If somebody came up with a primality test that was very fast and never had false positives, people would want to use it ... but the effectiveness of public-key cryptography would be unchanged.

__________________________________

As Clive and others have reminded us many times, the *hard* part of finding prime numbers for public-key systems is obtaining a sufficiently unpredictable starting number for the prime-search process.

That step goes wrong often, and in a variety of ways.

__________________________________

Grant seems to have a gift for snake oil, but at the same time lacks sophistication about how he exploits his talents. Perhaps he'll learn from his present project.

I shouldn't be surprised if he pops up in some different grift within a few years.

]]>From what I've gathered, there seems to be three things Crown Sterling is currently working on

1. The 24-sided dart board with spooky remainders of primes mod 24 -- that when finding new primes, allows reducing the search space by two thirds (the effect is so insignificant, such speedups are ignored in the Big O notation). The most interesting part here is IMO that apparently the Knight's Templar have predicted primes with the help of tomatoes.

2. Breaking of the RSA.

3. Developing their Time AI public key encryption algorithm.

The section 1 has been hashed over and over, and section 3 has nothing published on it yet (I doubt there ever will be). But 3 isn't important until they show they can break RSA (section 2) so it's this one I want to draw attention to.

For some reason Grant is more open about his research on Instagram (might be because it doesn't intersect with the infosec bubble calling out his bullshit, and because his fanbase likes to look at his wanna-be da Vinci doodles).

One specific post I want to highlight is this one:

New Mathematical Discovery: The exact factors (5987 x 6323) of this Bi-prime 37,855,801 appear contiguously and perfectly within its 1/x reciprocal value (1/37,855,801) string. Since realizing the above, our research team has tested many Biprimes to see whether their factors appear in their respective 1/x reciprocal values and also how they may relate to the “period” (repetition) of those values (in repeating rationals).

For non-Unique (have period lengths that no other prime possesses) and non “Period” Primes where their period is substantially less than the scale of the number) it appears that their two prime factors, regardless of length appear inside their reciprocal decimal extensions! As the period for these numbers is generally quite large, one must extend the length of these decimal extensions at least long enough to surpass their first Period cycle.

Paradoxically, the longer the BiPrime you desire to factor, the easier to locate the long consecutive prime string embedded within its 1/x reciprocal value. I believe that this realization will have major ramifications in many fields of science and cryptography. It also says that numbers could never have been invented by Mankind, the degree of sophistication and analysis necessary to accomplish this is so far beyond even the world’s current understanding and comprehension of the language we call Mathematics.

This is fascinating work as we believe it says something very fundamental about the “Source Code” of numbers in general, and implies a deeper numerical meaning within nature’s elegant complexity, yet beautiful simplicity. These decimal extensions also appear to possess Wave characteristics (similar to constants) both in their period values as well as the distance between factors and how this also relates to periodicity. Perhaps the 1/x value is a veritable DNA 🧬 for numbers themselves. It’s a brave new world. Feels like we are on the verge of something really big that will unpack the nature of DNA and our awareness (and purpose) of numbers generally.

There's two aspects to this

1. It doesn't hold true for all primes. I wrote a tiny program that shows this: https://pastebin.com/uua5Jnxx Grant and his team acknowledge this in one of the Instagram posts but it doesn't stop them from fear mongering.

2. The efficiency of the algorithm ("search for prime factors in the recurring decimal of the reciprocal of the semi-prime") is ridiculously slow and requires ridiculous TMTO.

You first need to find the period of the semi-prime. It might be trivially doable with 2-6 digit semi-primes, but even the trivial RSA-100, broken in 1991, has 100 digits:

n = 15226050279225333605356183781326374297180681149613

80688657908494580122963258952897654000350692006139

a) Assuming n is not relatively prime to 10, determining the period with brute force takes too long. I'd appreciate if someone did the math.

b) Even if the period could be determined, to avoid having to calculate the decimal expansion again every time, it needs to be stored on memory. The period length is at worst n-1 so writing down the entire period takes at worst n-1 bytes, or 10^83 petabytes (there are only 10^82 atoms in the observable universe).

c) My conjecture is, it is actually quite likely the prime factors (37975227936943673922808872755445627854565536638199, 40094690950920881030683735292761468389214899724061) would be found on memory where every atom of our universe has been manipulated to contain petabytes of decimals.

The problem is, even with the TMTO, you still need to check practically every offset of that memory to see if what you tested is indeed a factor of the semi-prime. This takes in the order of n operations, and is thus completely infeasible.

In his post Grant says "I believe that this realization will have major ramifications in many fields of science and cryptography." The ramifications can be evaluated by considering Grant's "discovery" takes forever to run even with smallest numbers, and by considering the GNFS algorithm can factor RSA-100 in seconds on modern HW.

So, if RSA-100 is too slow, what chance does Crown Sterling have against the RSA-2048 challenge, where the semi-prime is

RSA-2048 = 2519590847565789349402718324004839857142928212620403202777713783604366202070

7595556264018525880784406918290641249515082189298559149176184502808489120072

8449926873928072877767359714183472702618963750149718246911650776133798590957

0009733045974880842840179742910064245869181719511874612151517265463228221686

9987549182422433637259085141865462043576798423387184774447920739934236584823

8242811981638150106748104516603773060562016196762561338441436038339044149526

3443219011465754445417842402092461651572335077870774981712577246796292638635

6373289912154831438167899885040445364023527381951378636564391212010397122822

120720357

Now, Crown Sterling would obviously say that this isn't how they broke RSA which begs the question -- if they already have factoring algorithm that runs in polynomial time, why waste time on "new discoveries" such as this, that don't offer any speedup at all?

But surely there's something else going on because as per this post's reasoning it's obvious they couldn't use this method to win the challenge they threw at JP Aumasson about factoring a 512-bit semi-prime. (Apparently they were thin-skinned enough to convince some random youtuber, which I find hilarious). So assuming the comment wasn't staged, how did they do it?

My guess is they did what Theranos did and tried to convince people they have something by running existing technology: e.g. GNFS on AWS.

But what about the discovery? I think it's possible that if they did what Theranos did, this was created to please the investors: another spooky phenomenon that is easy to follow, appears to offer big results, and that requires a course on algorithm design to determine it's useless on big numbers.

---

More and more I think the fraud here seems to be misleading the audience and especially the investors by showing patterns that leads to them drawing bad conclusions.

E.g. one of the questions the Instagram post has, is

Does this mean the end of public-key encryption based on prime factorization?

to which Grant replies

I have already stated publicly that all factor based encryptions are now, in my opinion, highly vulnerable. and this statement stands independent of size of the public key.

He doesn't claims this discovery will break RSA, but implies that by presenting the two next to each other. There's room for deniability too: he could later say "I was only answering a question and it had nothing to do with curious properties of decimal expansions the image was about!".

Another example is his youtube interview where he says

When I realized my discovery might have a significant impact on the way encryption is done--

He is not saying his discovery has an impact on the security of RSA, but "how encryption is done", i.e. what he can make people use, i.e. what he can sell to you. It's just the listener's mind that makes these conclusions from the context.

]]>---

"I have no expertise to be able to tell is this is BS. But it *might* be important. It would take me roughly forever to research enough to make an informed decision on something that would take Bruce maybe thirty seconds; which is the most effective use of employee time for the company?"]]>

---

Sssoooo... does Black Hat normally charge presenters for "talks", and are they normally peer-reviewed?

Were the attendees aware that they were viewing a paid "product placement" ad instead of a "peer-reviewed presentation"?

While Black Hat may have been entirely on the up-and-up, the whole situation has a whiff of skeezy about it.

As to "breach of contract"... it sounds like they made their presentation despite hecklers. So unless the contract stipulates "and we will put a video of the presentation on our web site for some specified period of time" I don't see that argument going very far in court.

Quantum computing, AI and huge amounts of PR resources. All that power and time wasted to confirm that all primes greater than 3 are neither divisible by 3 nor by 2. sad.

My true issue with this story is that I had the idea that Black Hat had some minimal requirements for soundness before accepting presentations. I would be interested in knowing how this one got through.

]]>mod

Mod can be your friend in some cases, depending on what is being done. E.g. if the modulus is prime, arithmetic mod N is simpler than regular arithmetic on range -N to N: no special significance to positive/negative, every number is invertible etc. Of course there is the slight issue of getting back to regular numbers after doing something in the mod system.

]]>Let's agree to disagree.

No. If I am wrong, I want to find my error and correct it. If you are wrong and are *willfully* choosing not to fix your thinking, that puts you in the same mindset as the self-aware scammers.

To dislodge a comfortable idea by essentially scientific means requires heavy rigor, discipline, and intellectual labor.

This is not about changing anyone's mind, it's simply about classifying the error. A comfortable lie is still a lie. If someone spreads something they *know* to be a lie, that's a malicious action that falls far, far outside the bounds of simply fooling themselves.

Maybe you don't know many people who adhere to traditional religions, but I surely do. They hold as absolute fact claims which are readily disproved. If they were told that this established their "intention to deceive," I imagine they'd be astonished.

Their astonishment doesn't change the truth of it.

Let's agree to disagree.

The relationships between knowledge, belief, and what is knowable by concrete experience are the subjects of a vast literature.

My conclusion is that in the average of humanity, what people "know" about the world is based on psychological comfort far more than any rational processes of evidence and analysis.

To dislodge a comfortable idea by essentially scientific means requires heavy rigor, discipline, and intellectual labor.

This is often demonstrated in comments on this blog, where technologists extraordinaires spout nonsense that couldn't survive 3 minutes of rational interrogation: even those expert in empiricism can't muster the resources to apply it uniformly.

Maybe you don't know many people who adhere to traditional religions, but I surely do. They hold as absolute fact claims which are readily disproved. If they were told that this established their "intention to deceive," I imagine they'd be astonished.

]]>The domains of those who know they're peddling garbage, and those who don't, are not exclusive.

No, they pretty much are. There may be some fuzzy thinking in the middle, but there is a stark difference between "I believe this to be true" and "I don't believe this to be true, but I'm going to *pretend* it is because it is to my advantage to do so". Just because people may shift from one to the other over time doesn't mean they overlap. The intent to defraud is a major difference and, like I said, that usually reveals itself in the way the person discusses the topic.

For example, I'd say a good 95% of flat-Earthers are just trying to gaslight people. There are just too many ways that a modern human can test that sort of hypothesis. If they *choose* to be willfully ignorant by not investigating the available facts, that defines their intention to deceive. It's a very small percentage who *are* looking at all the arguments for and against and *still* convincing themselves that living on a pancake makes the most sense.

>If I could break RSA what I would do is...

There's already an "RSA Challenge" with a long list of RSA numbers, the number of decimal digits, the number of binary digits and the (former) cash prize amounts that would have been awarded if somebody factored the number.

If you find a way to factor a large product of two primes, then just take this list of RSA numbers, factor the ones that haven't been factored yet, and publish the two factors of each number. The factors are not known to anyone, not even the people at RSA, but the factors are easily verified with "bc" or some other such calculator program so that anyone can verify for themselves that you have factored the RSA numbers correctly. See

h t t p s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_Factoring_Challenge

Publishing a list of factored RSA primes would probably prove that you've really got the factoring algorithm that nobody else has and that it isn't snake oil.

Just thinking out loud...

]]>In my younger days, I had an idea that I thought would make a perpetual motion machine. I put a bit of thought into it, and proved to myself that it was nothing of the sort; taught me a lot about thermodynamics in the process.

For the sincerely self-deluded, it's a matter of getting them to ask (and answer) the questions they haven't thought of yet; for those intent on deluding others, one must aim at helping the intended victims.

If 1 then its 1=1 but anything height is different, don't unstand mod in English,I've got a thersore;)]]>

The domains of those who know they're peddling garbage, and those who don't, are not exclusive.

American physicist Robert L Park has been an energetic teacher to the general public concerning pseudoscience.

His entertaining book Voodoo Science presents his thesis -- with abundant examples -- that the usual path begins with sincere belief in the false claim ... but over time, having been confronted with strong refutation, the would-be scientists cross the line from honest ignorance to the knowing perpetration of fraud.

]]>Before I read the blog post, the headline jumped out at me: the very name "Crown Sterling" tripped my grifter alarm.

Life experience has exposed me to enough fraudsters and compulsive liars, that there's a sort of aura I immediately recognize.

"Crown Sterling" is obviously grandiose, but more subtly has the effect of "confidence hijacking." In my opinion, it invites mental associations with "pound sterling," without doing this so bluntly that folks will necessarily be aware that this has happened.

The pound sterling is the oldest currency still in use; its use has never been interrupted; and it has held its value remarkably well across centuries of British economic boom and bust.

What better way to imply, "we're rock-solid and you can depend on us absolutely."

I don't know whether this was done consciously, but it's classic con-man.

]]>https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.1007/BF03039306/fulltext.pdf

]]>Granted, there is undoubtedly a connection [1, 2], but how did you establish *ownership*?

Aha! The proverbial [heraldic] lion food!

"The scariest part of this entire episode is that there were able to get someone at IBM (!!) to needle @Bruce about it. It is difficult for me to imagine that any "colleague" of Bruce's at IBM would be so stupid as to fall for this, so someone how they got pressure there. Scary."

It's really not scary. IBM -- like every tech company -- has non-technical employees. Someone tells someone that someone has a new startup and wants to talk to me. If that middle someone isn't technical, he's not going to vet the startup first.

]]>https://arkcrystals.com/lifestyles/science/

"Haramein’s patented Harmonic Flux Resonator replicates the magnetohydrodynamic behaviors which naturally occur in a variety of astrophysical objects and enables each ARK crystal to become a point of high coherence in the structure of space around it, providing great benefits to biological health."

]]>It is a pet theory of mine, that not only are there infinite pairs of twin primes, but that there are infinite sets of quad primes.

I.E. there are infinite X (very few and very far between), where

X-1 is prime

X+1 is prime

X+5 is prime

X+7 is prime

"Whilst their are some tricks with polynomials and bases, many think most sieves can never be efficient especially with very long integers."

Unfortunately, I have doubts. I do not trust RSA.

The bigger the semiprime, the more the attack surface shrinks.

]]>And here, lets look at x being odd. I already covered the x being even case above.

We are looking at the prime squared being congruent to 1 mod 24.

So, two cases left, and let x=2z+1

So, we have either

[ 6*(2z+1) + 1 ] or [ 6*(2z+1) - 1 ]

In the first case, where the prime is right-handed,

[ 6*(2z+1) + 1 ] squared

[ 36*(4z*z + 4*z + 1) + 2*6*(2z+1) + 1 ]

[ 144*z*z + 144*z + 36 + 24*z + 12 + 1 ]

By introspection, the 36 + 12 gets you the mod 24.

In the left-handed case

[ 6*(2z+1) - 1 ] squared

[ 36*(4z*z - 4*z + 1) - 2*6*(2z+1) + 1 ]

[ 144*z*z - 144*z + 36 - 24z -12 + 1 ]

By introspection, the 36 - 12 gets you the mod 24.

In conclusion, any odd number that is not divisible by 3, when squared, must be congruent to 1 mod 24.

QED

I'll do another post of the case where x is odd, because it is much longer.

Yup, it's one of those things they get you to do when you take an interest in maths at an early age (and you try to forget when physics feels more like fun ;-)

Trust me on this, I've investigated sieves for decades.

It's a branch of math that some would feel it does not get the love it deserves, others well they figure that there is no fame or fortune in it.

The big bug that the neigh says tend to drag up is the issue of division or factoring. Whilst their are some tricks with polynomials and bases, many think most sieves can never be efficient especially with very long integers.

]]>I was not referring to any sieve aspects.

Trust me on this, I've investigated sieves for decades.

I was only noting that any prime greater than 3, when squared, is congruent to 1 mod 24.

Easily shown.

All primes greater than 3 are of the form 6x+1 or 6x-1.

And x can be even or odd.

Lets eliminate the easy two cases where x

is even.

When x is even (let x = 2y), we have

[ (6*(2y) + 1 ] squared or [ (6*(2y) - 1 ] squared

In the 6x+1 case, we get

36*4*y*y + 2*6*2y + 1

In the 6x-1 case, we get

36*4*y*y - 2*6*2y + 1

By obvious introspection, in the case of x being even, the prime greater than 3, when squared, must be congruent to 1 mod 24.

I'll do another post of the case where x is odd, because it is much longer.

The mod 24 issue is seriously trivial.

Yes and no. You first have to recognize that it would normally being used as an example of a "sieve" not a "generator" thus 24 is marginally better than 6.

When it comes to very large prime selection of the 1024byte size generation is usually done by random selection and sieve rather than by determanistic generation, so anything that makes a marked improvment as a sieve would be of interest the fact that 24 = 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 whilst 6 = 3 x 2 makes a difference when doing fast division tricks on very large integer numbers in binary form, especially on CPU's that might only have an eight bit data bus width.

]]>Robert Grant is a successful healthcare CEO andamateurmathematician

Mathematician, eh?

From the first few seconds of the link @maqp shared:

Well, I think as human beings, first of all, we have an inherent ability to recognize patterns!

That's right, dawg!

]]>]]>

I tried to get a copy of the pdf of the complaint, as the awful scribd also insists that you sign you for an account. (Why do people use scribd at all eludes me. Is web hosting so difficult to find?) I found one at ArsTechnica.

I bumped across a commercial site providing access to court dockets, and I noticed
">something curious in this case. Item 4 is a "*Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement", with an annotation " No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Crown Sterling Limited LLC.(Bressler, Joshua)*". The information demanded by Rule 7.1 appears for presiding magistrates to decide whether they should recuse themselves.

I can't quite square the apparent statement with the existence of "Strathspey Crown", which lives at the same address, has the same logo, has phone and fax numbers differing only in the last digit from those of "Crown Sterling", and shares staff with, and the "No corporate parent" text. What would then the relationship between both entities?

I then remembered I had a Pacer account, and just wasted the last hour in trying to revive it in vain, and then in trying to register anew. I wanted to see the original of piece #4. There is also a "NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING" on the record which might make interesting reading.

At least in the US there is excellent public access to court dockets (when it works), contrary to Europe. I recently had a lousy experience in obtaining in obtaining a final German decision (which are thoroughly scoured and anonymised), with some abusive nitwit clerk insisting I present a full justification as to why I should be entitled to read a public judgement rendered "Im Namen des Volkes".

OTOH, corporate information is incomparably better in Europe (I have experience with BE, NL, CH, UK, FR and DE) than in the US (e.g., the wretched Delaware registry). But I digress.

I watched the vertical videos of the presentation, and from the lawsuit I expected something bordering on the pugilistic. But no, it was rather civilised. They even got a dose of applause from the tamer nerds. I was harsher than these hecklers in the past, at conferences and film festivals.

Whoops, I mean since the video says the paper was published "yesterday", the filming date was March 21, so he did all that in eight days.

]]>Another aspect to the timeline:

At 4:14 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLb95ESwy60 the interviewer asks Grant what the implication of finding quasi primes is, to which Grant responds he does not know enough to know how profound the implication is. According to the video (3:53) it was filmed on March 19 (day before the paper was published arXiv). The Time AI marketing crap was uploaded on March 28.

So in just ten days Grant was able to figure out it meant he could break RSA, come up with the implementation, discover a quantum encryption algorithm to replace RSA, design and render the video, and push it for to the world to see.

In comparison, it took the Hold My Ark six days longer to cut and publish Grant's interview.

]]>Takes less than a minute.

All primes greater than 3 are of the form 6x+1 or 6x-1.

Use x being even or odd.

You have 4 cases.

Do the math. It really is that trivial.

And I am not a number theorist, a cryptographer ... yet I can see through it. Sheesh.

My only question is - how does the Black Hat code of conduct play in here? I know that at these things one should be "respectful" of a speaker, but what exactly went down and should insisting that something that is obviously bullshit is such be regarded as rude?

I attended a nonsensical talk years ago at the Society for Exact Philosophy meeting (it was an abstract only session, so it was not surprising it made it through). In this case, I refrained from commenting since it seemed clear the presenter of the actual "contradictions in physics" was self-fooled, and the "interpreter" was a charlatan, but ...

]]>https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Maly_statni_znak.PNG

http://timeai.io/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Crown-Sterling-Logo-WhiteText-V2-AA.png

]]>Bad Jim, that's just plus one decimal place times minus one,using a centre points,

You could be fancy and call it,

- A sequential ordered tripple

But there are other "sequential ordered trippls that have interesting properties.

Take the tripple,

- p!-1,p!,p!+1

Where p! is "primorial"(factorial of the prime sequence[1]) thus is always even. The odds are quite high that p!-1 and p!+1 are both primes, thus form a twin prime.

There is also a reflective property around p! That is for every p!-n (where n is a simple interger) that is prime, there is a high probability that p!+n is also prime. Further if you look at the preceading primorial in the sequence it's reflections go up around the integer multiples untill you get to p!. The exceptions are when p!+n is equall to a multiple of a smaller prime.

[1] The name primorial and it's definition are down to Harvey Dubner, which happened in the era of PCs sufficiently advanced to be able to develop and test new sieves,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primorial

This naming was a decade or so after I noticed the reflection possibilities for making a sieve when I was a young teenager, and might account for why I had difficulty explaining the idea to people such as teachers, who at the end of the day are generally not "mathematicians" so actually could not help with my question of how to move forward to an equation that would only give "twin primes".

]]>