From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 08:16:29 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Directed Hamiltonian Path Problem
Message-ID: <01HY84U9MG468WYXJI@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"tcmay@got.net" 28-NOV-1995 20:15:30.64

The reason we speak in terms of physical volumes of "Adleman computers" is
to make concrete the way things scale. If the amount of Adleman computers
needed to factor, say, a 2000-digit modulus (or some reasonably equivalent
Hamiltonian cycle problem, such as the TSP) is "ten Pacific oceans full of
them running for 100 years," then one has a pretty clear feel for just how
futile it is to ask about "But what about if we apply MASSIVE
PARALLELISM?!?!"
------------
	Ah. My objection is probably from being too much of a purist in my own
area of science. I do tend to try to be quite careful in whatever I write to
use the correct terms (then explain them for those who've heard the incorrect
ones).

-------------
I don't worry much about factoring breakthroughs. And I don't mean minor
improvements, which keep occurring: I mean major breakthroughs which would
make factoring a 2000-decimal-digit number "easy."

Practically speaking, snarfing private keys is a helluva lot easier, for
many reasons.
--------------
	Umm... it's easier for each one. But the effort in question adds up.
Ultimately, for an agency (NSA, CIA, etcetera) wanting to do a lot of such
unencryptings, coming up with a factoring method is the most efficient way to
go. Fortunately, science doesn't work very well with security classifications
(unlike engineering, which is what most military classified "science" is from
what I know).
	-Allen