Prev: How cool is this?
Next: The Winds of Change.
From: Bryan on 7 May 2010 11:57
Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>Something that concerns me persoanlly
> means a personal matter, e.g. whether I am going to theatre tonight.

I don't care and don't write about your theater-going, just the
nonsense you post here. What if a novice took your posts seriously?
Consider the damage you could do.

> Just "claiming" that you have explained or perhaps even in depth
> explained doesn't unconditionally mean that an explanation actually
> exists. Certainly it could be that I overlooked, but in that case you
> could cut and paste something or provide the beginning and end of
> paragraphs of past posts and time of the posts,, don't you?

See my previous post. It has a bunch of cut-and-pasted quotes.

Do you even care whether what you write is true?


> I can assure you that I wouldn't even think about putting up a scheme
> involving linear relationships.

Except that you've done just that here on sci.crypt, over and over.

> But the "trick" here is (namely) however
> exploiting the "non-uniqueness" of the solutions.

You tricked yourself.


--
--Bryan
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 7 May 2010 12:36
Bryan wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>> Something that concerns me persoanlly
>> means a personal matter, e.g. whether I am going to theatre tonight.
>
> I don't care and don't write about your theater-going, just the
> nonsense you post here. What if a novice took your posts seriously?
> Consider the damage you could do.

But you clipped my question on "how" you inferred from my sentence that
I had in a sentence implied that there were a "personal" acquaintance
between us? Could you explain that? (Were you in a psychological
abnormal state, when you wrote that sentence that I questioned, or
what?)

>> Just "claiming" that you have explained or perhaps even in depth
>> explained doesn't unconditionally mean that an explanation actually
>> exists. Certainly it could be that I overlooked, but in that case you
>> could cut and paste something or provide the beginning and end of
>> paragraphs of past posts and time of the posts,, don't you?
>
> See my previous post. It has a bunch of cut-and-pasted quotes.
>
> Do you even care whether what you write is true?

You recently employed the concept of "dominance". What is that in the
context of crypto? Could you give a reference where that term is
effectively used in the analysis of ciphers? Or that was your own
invented terminology?

M. K. Shen
From: Maaartin on 7 May 2010 14:42
On May 7, 6:36 pm, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
> You recently employed the concept of "dominance". What is that in the
> context of crypto? Could you give a reference where that term is
> effectively used in the analysis of ciphers? Or that was your own
> invented terminology?

I can't speak for him, but I don't think he meant anything special,
just the fact, that given enough text (I mean plaintext+ciphertext)
there will be (much) more equations than variables, Something like
this is in fact true for each cipher: With the amount of text higher
than the keylength, the key is uniquely determined except in
degenerate cases. And the degenerate cases are not good, since they
mean existence of equivalent keys. For a good cipher, it's hard to
solve the equations.

I made some progress towards cracking your cipher: I solved 10
randomly generated instances each using 100 ints of text, one of them
took three minutes and all others took less than one second. I don't
understand why this happens and I need to check for errors in the
implementation and make much more tests before I post it, so consider
it as a very preliminary information.
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 7 May 2010 16:01
Maaartin wrote:

> I made some progress towards cracking your cipher: I solved 10
> randomly generated instances each using 100 ints of text, one of them
> took three minutes and all others took less than one second. I don't
> understand why this happens and I need to check for errors in the
> implementation and make much more tests before I post it, so consider
> it as a very preliminary information.

I sincerely hope that there were no errors on your part. But what I
don't yet (clearly) understand from what you wrote above is what
you meant by "solving" in this context. I surmise that you didn't
solve for the "parameters" of 10 different PRNGs, or did you?

M. K. Shen
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 7 May 2010 16:07
Mok-Kong Shen:
> Maaartin wrote:
>
> I sincerely hope that there were no errors on your part.[dnip]

Sorry, my fault in mis-reading your post. So please retain
only the one sentence above.

M. K. Shen
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: How cool is this?
Next: The Winds of Change.