TL;DR: In this paper, the vanishing of the constant term b and the sum of coefficients s = a1 +... + ak had a strong effect on the behaviour of equation (1.1).
Abstract: (1.1) a1x1 + . . .+ akxk = b with x1, . . . , xk in a prescribed set of integers. We saw that the vanishing of the constant term b and the sum of coefficients s = a1 + . . . + ak had a strong effect on the behaviour of equation (1.1). The condition b = 0 is equivalent to homogeneity or multiplication invariance (if x1, . . . , xk is a solution, so is tx1, . . . , txk), while s = 0 means translation invariance (if x1, . . . , xk is a solution, so is x1 + t, . . . , xk+ t). We called equations with b = s = 0 invariant , and those with b 6= 0 or s 6= 0 noninvariant . In Part I of the paper we studied invariant equations; now we treat noninvariant ones. We recall the principal notations.
TL;DR: In this article, the problem of finding necessary and sufficient conditions for a finite set to tile the integers was studied for sets of size having at most two prime factors, and the conditions are always sufficient, but it is unknown whether they are necessary for all finite sets.
TL;DR: It is proved that the expected number of operations which will be required is O(exp{ 83Qn n In In n)l/2) for some constant f > 0.
Abstract: The paper describes a "probabilistic algorithm" for finding a factor of any large composite integer n (the required input is the integer n together with an auxiliary sequence of random numbers). It is proved that the expected number of operations which will be required is O(exp{ 83Qn n In In n)l/2)) for some constant f > 0. Asymptotically, this algorithm is much faster than any previously analyzed algorithm for factoring integers; earlier algorithms have all required O(na) operations where a > 1/5.