This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arvindn, I can surmise, but I'm loath to do so as assumptions often land one in the soup. Does the existence of a proper TWINKLE (or TWIRL) implementation imply that 512 digit numbers are so easily factored that they should not be used in crypto applications depending on difficulty of factoring? If so, does this malediction for numbers with some properties extend to others; even if not so drastically? For example, would a 513 digit number be much easier to factor as being 'closely related' to 512 digit numbers? This is something which, I think, ought to be addressed here.
By the way, excellent enlargement of this article. It clearly took some effort to be that clear on such a topic. Thanks for it. ww 14:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arvindn, I can surmise, but I'm loath to do so as assumptions often land one in the soup. Does the existence of a proper TWINKLE (or TWIRL) implementation imply that 512 digit numbers are so easily factored that they should not be used in crypto applications depending on difficulty of factoring? If so, does this malediction for numbers with some properties extend to others; even if not so drastically? For example, would a 513 digit number be much easier to factor as being 'closely related' to 512 digit numbers? This is something which, I think, ought to be addressed here.
By the way, excellent enlargement of this article. It clearly took some effort to be that clear on such a topic. Thanks for it. ww 14:15, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)