Cryptography-Digest Digest #579, Volume #14 Sun, 10 Jun 01 12:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!! (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? (Mok-Kong Shen)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? (Mok-Kong Shen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy
Date: 10 Jun 2001 14:49:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote in <3B238460.FFA3DD4A@t-
online.de>:
>I consider the 'practical' situations. There can never
>be possible to send an infinite stream, even till eternity.
>What we can do is to put a sufficiently number of messages
>together and send the concatenation. That avoids to a
>very good extent the finding of the boundaries between
>the messages by the opponent. If one has only a single
>message at hand and cannot wait till other messages
>arrive to be sent together, then one has to pad. But
>normally this isn't the case, as far as I am aware. For
>one usually have quite an amount of messages of different
True its obvious if one understands the concept of
perfect security. That any anything that gets closes to
it would be better. So if one cant wait for several messages
to creat a long messages made of several small one great.
If one has only one messages and there seems to be no more
in the que. Send it with padding. So do you see the best
situation is to always send an encrypted message of the
same size. If you have low prioity messages you could
even send them last and if message filled wait till next
day to send rest or if big and low priority spread it out
over many messages. interspered by short high priotity
messages. But keeping each transmitted message to the same size.
David A. Scott
--
SCOTT19U.ZIP NOW AVAILABLE WORLD WIDE "OLD VERSIOM"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip
My website http://members.nbci.com/ecil/index.htm
My crypto code http://radiusnet.net/crypto/archive/scott/
MY Compression Page http://members.nbci.com/ecil/compress.htm
**NOTE FOR EMAIL drop the roman "five" ***
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged or
something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you!
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:54:37 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > you posted on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:24:35 +0200:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I find often the biggest problem with math
> papers/discussions
> > > > > > > > is the lack of a good language to discuss it in. For
> example,
> > > > > > > > my book on Group Theory I got (From Dover) only has 13
> words
> > > > > > > > in the entire text. The rest is vague human egyptian art
> work
> > > > > > > > that future archeologists will look at and say "this means
> > > > > > > > fire, and that's water, and ...".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This can obvioulsy never be true, or else there would be an
> > > > > > > > immense scandal about the publisher Dover that has a good
> > > > > > > > name and whose scientific books have always been of good
> > > > > > > > quality, even though to a large part outdated. (BTW, I am
> > > > > > > > myself in posssesion of a Dover book on group theory!)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I never said the book is bad. I said it's bad to learn from.
> It's
> > > not
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > good text IMHO. Koblitz's "Course in Number ..." is a good text
> > > because
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > involves english :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are you talking about here in view of the quote I gave
> > > > > > about your earlier post above?? Read once again your own
> > > > > > words that you had written!!
> > > > >
> > > > > When I posted the details of the book I posted a followup to my own
> > > post.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm allowed to modify my statements. If you still think the book is
> > > better
> > > > > as fire starter material then you have to realize you are basing
> this on
> > > my
> > > > > opionion of the text not fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the confusion if any.
> > > >
> > > > What did you post to modify your statements BEFORE I asked
> > > > (challenged) you for the third time to post the title
> > > > and author name of the book?? And what 'details', excepting
> > > > that you now don't consider the book to be very bad and that
> > > > there exist better books??
> > >
> > > What do you want? I posted the biblio of the book. Want my blood now
> too?
> > >
> > > Shall I grovel? Shall I beg for your forgiveness?
> > >
> > > Ahh stuff it in your ear.
> >
> > The one single thing that I want is to let people of
> > the group know with what kind of attitude you are posting
> > stuffs in the group.
>
> Why? What have YOU contributed to this group? Honestly, who died and made
> you Queen?
>
> Once in a while I stumble accross something that gets the group going in
> discussion. Isn't that worth while?
The (hoped for) contribution is to (hopefully) have in the
future less posts in the group that contain blatant lies.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:00:26 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > you posted on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:24:35 +0200:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I find often the biggest problem with math
> > papers/discussions
> > > > > > > > > is the lack of a good language to discuss it in. For
> > example,
> > > > > > > > > my book on Group Theory I got (From Dover) only has 13
> > words
> > > > > > > > > in the entire text. The rest is vague human egyptian
art
> > work
> > > > > > > > > that future archeologists will look at and say "this
means
> > > > > > > > > fire, and that's water, and ...".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This can obvioulsy never be true, or else there would be
an
> > > > > > > > > immense scandal about the publisher Dover that has a good
> > > > > > > > > name and whose scientific books have always been of good
> > > > > > > > > quality, even though to a large part outdated. (BTW, I am
> > > > > > > > > myself in posssesion of a Dover book on group theory!)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I never said the book is bad. I said it's bad to learn
from.
> > It's
> > > > not
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > good text IMHO. Koblitz's "Course in Number ..." is a good
text
> > > > because
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > involves english :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are you talking about here in view of the quote I gave
> > > > > > > about your earlier post above?? Read once again your own
> > > > > > > words that you had written!!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I posted the details of the book I posted a followup to my
own
> > > > post.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm allowed to modify my statements. If you still think the
book is
> > > > better
> > > > > > as fire starter material then you have to realize you are basing
> > this on
> > > > my
> > > > > > opionion of the text not fact.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry for the confusion if any.
> > > > >
> > > > > What did you post to modify your statements BEFORE I asked
> > > > > (challenged) you for the third time to post the title
> > > > > and author name of the book?? And what 'details', excepting
> > > > > that you now don't consider the book to be very bad and that
> > > > > there exist better books??
> > > >
> > > > What do you want? I posted the biblio of the book. Want my blood
now
> > too?
> > > >
> > > > Shall I grovel? Shall I beg for your forgiveness?
> > > >
> > > > Ahh stuff it in your ear.
> > >
> > > The one single thing that I want is to let people of
> > > the group know with what kind of attitude you are posting
> > > stuffs in the group.
> >
> > Why? What have YOU contributed to this group? Honestly, who died and
made
> > you Queen?
> >
> > Once in a while I stumble accross something that gets the group going in
> > discussion. Isn't that worth while?
>
> The (hoped for) contribution is to (hopefully) have in the
> future less posts in the group that contain blatant lies.
What did I lie about? The book IMHO does suck, that's not a lie, it's an
opinion. Scott did say RC5/RSA/IDEA/[anything that isn't his] is weak (I
posted the deja links).
If 100% of your posts turn into a big useful discussion you either are very
directed and topyical or post very little.
Tom
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OTP WAS BROKEN!!!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:00:50 GMT
Jim D wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 14:51:51 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Al wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting...
> >> Your replies seem to suggest that you think there is some merit in
> >> what newbie says...
> >> OTP is indistinguishable from completely randomly generated numbers,
> >> even seemingly random typing of the upper row of numbers. This could
> >> be any message shifted out mod 26, thats the point of this OTP thread.
> >> Do you guys get out much?
> >
> >But your message wasn't completely randomly generated numbers, as Paul
> >demonstrated. The second biggest problem with OTP is that it is very
> >difficult to get a large quantity of true random numbers.
>
> Doesn't have to be. Need only be random enough so the cryptanalyst
> can't/is unlikely to be able to predict the next key byte.
>
> --
> ______________________________________________
>
> Posted by Jim D.
>
> Propino tibi salutem !
>
> jim @sideband.fsnet.co.uk
> dynastic @cwcom.net
> ___________________________________
That is the point. It was possible to derive some statistical properties
of Pauls random sequence.
Suppose you have two sequences :
P(n) = plain text, U(n) = random sequence of known variance. Then
C(n) = P(n) + U(n)
Having the message and knowing the statistics of both P and U, it is
possible to apply both apriori and apostori prediction thechniques to
decode the message. Each pass will reveal possible sequences of plain
text. Using these to correct the predictive parameters can reveal lots
of P. It might not hold up in court, but who cares?
Look at it this way : although an OTP from true random numbers can
decode into any message. If the numbers aren't truly random, the OTP can
decode only into a subset of messages that have keys that match the
statistics of the OTP. Given that you know the statistics of the
language of the message and the statistics of the OTP,
predictor/corrector algorithms can do a fair job of recovery. Throw a
few "probable" less common words into the mix, and the results can be
very good. Like I said, it doesn't have to be perfect. Just good enough
for the purpose.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:09:24 +0200
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote:
> >I consider the 'practical' situations. There can never
> >be possible to send an infinite stream, even till eternity.
> >What we can do is to put a sufficiently number of messages
> >together and send the concatenation. That avoids to a
> >very good extent the finding of the boundaries between
> >the messages by the opponent. If one has only a single
> >message at hand and cannot wait till other messages
> >arrive to be sent together, then one has to pad. But
> >normally this isn't the case, as far as I am aware. For
> >one usually have quite an amount of messages of different
>
> True its obvious if one understands the concept of
> perfect security. That any anything that gets closes to
> it would be better. So if one cant wait for several messages
> to creat a long messages made of several small one great.
> If one has only one messages and there seems to be no more
> in the que. Send it with padding. So do you see the best
> situation is to always send an encrypted message of the
> same size. If you have low prioity messages you could
> even send them last and if message filled wait till next
> day to send rest or if big and low priority spread it out
> over many messages. interspered by short high priotity
> messages. But keeping each transmitted message to the same size.
One could even go in the other direction. A long message
could be divided in to pieces and 'formally' sent as
a number of different messages (to be put together by
the recepient). (Between these pieces other messages
may intervene.) I personally would think that a practically
viable way is to always send 'records' of a quite natural
constant length, say 160 bytes, and one doesn't provide to
the outside world the notion of (individual) messages at
all. (The messages have headers to distinguish themselves
but these are encrypted and can't be found by the opponent,
since the encryption is considered secure.) So the
opponent sees a stream of such records and has no idea of
how many messages are in there at all.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:12:44 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > you posted on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:24:35 +0200:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I find often the biggest problem with math
> > > papers/discussions
> > > > > > > > > > is the lack of a good language to discuss it in. For
> > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > my book on Group Theory I got (From Dover) only has 13
> > > words
> > > > > > > > > > in the entire text. The rest is vague human egyptian
> art
> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > that future archeologists will look at and say "this
> means
> > > > > > > > > > fire, and that's water, and ...".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This can obvioulsy never be true, or else there would be
> an
> > > > > > > > > > immense scandal about the publisher Dover that has a good
> > > > > > > > > > name and whose scientific books have always been of good
> > > > > > > > > > quality, even though to a large part outdated. (BTW, I am
> > > > > > > > > > myself in posssesion of a Dover book on group theory!)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I never said the book is bad. I said it's bad to learn
> from.
> > > It's
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > good text IMHO. Koblitz's "Course in Number ..." is a good
> text
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > involves english :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What are you talking about here in view of the quote I gave
> > > > > > > > about your earlier post above?? Read once again your own
> > > > > > > > words that you had written!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I posted the details of the book I posted a followup to my
> own
> > > > > post.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm allowed to modify my statements. If you still think the
> book is
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > as fire starter material then you have to realize you are basing
> > > this on
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > opionion of the text not fact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion if any.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What did you post to modify your statements BEFORE I asked
> > > > > > (challenged) you for the third time to post the title
> > > > > > and author name of the book?? And what 'details', excepting
> > > > > > that you now don't consider the book to be very bad and that
> > > > > > there exist better books??
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you want? I posted the biblio of the book. Want my blood
> now
> > > too?
> > > > >
> > > > > Shall I grovel? Shall I beg for your forgiveness?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ahh stuff it in your ear.
> > > >
> > > > The one single thing that I want is to let people of
> > > > the group know with what kind of attitude you are posting
> > > > stuffs in the group.
> > >
> > > Why? What have YOU contributed to this group? Honestly, who died and
> made
> > > you Queen?
> > >
> > > Once in a while I stumble accross something that gets the group going in
> > > discussion. Isn't that worth while?
> >
> > The (hoped for) contribution is to (hopefully) have in the
> > future less posts in the group that contain blatant lies.
>
> What did I lie about? The book IMHO does suck, that's not a lie, it's an
> opinion. Scott did say RC5/RSA/IDEA/[anything that isn't his] is weak (I
> posted the deja links).
>
> If 100% of your posts turn into a big useful discussion you either are very
> directed and topyical or post very little.
Any one who sincerely (honestly) claims that a Dover math
books has only 13 scientifically relavant words cannot be
but a pure idiot in math, in my humble view.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:27:47 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Tom St Denis wrote:
> >
> > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > you posted on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:24:35 +0200:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I find often the biggest problem with math
> > > > papers/discussions
> > > > > > > > > > > is the lack of a good language to discuss it in.
For
> > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > my book on Group Theory I got (From Dover) only has
13
> > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > in the entire text. The rest is vague human
egyptian
> > art
> > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > that future archeologists will look at and say
"this
> > means
> > > > > > > > > > > fire, and that's water, and ...".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This can obvioulsy never be true, or else there would
be
> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > immense scandal about the publisher Dover that has a
good
> > > > > > > > > > > name and whose scientific books have always been of
good
> > > > > > > > > > > quality, even though to a large part outdated. (BTW, I
am
> > > > > > > > > > > myself in posssesion of a Dover book on group theory!)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I never said the book is bad. I said it's bad to learn
> > from.
> > > > It's
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > good text IMHO. Koblitz's "Course in Number ..." is a
good
> > text
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > involves english :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What are you talking about here in view of the quote I
gave
> > > > > > > > > about your earlier post above?? Read once again your own
> > > > > > > > > words that you had written!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I posted the details of the book I posted a followup to
my
> > own
> > > > > > post.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm allowed to modify my statements. If you still think the
> > book is
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > as fire starter material then you have to realize you are
basing
> > > > this on
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > opionion of the text not fact.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion if any.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What did you post to modify your statements BEFORE I asked
> > > > > > > (challenged) you for the third time to post the title
> > > > > > > and author name of the book?? And what 'details', excepting
> > > > > > > that you now don't consider the book to be very bad and that
> > > > > > > there exist better books??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you want? I posted the biblio of the book. Want my
blood
> > now
> > > > too?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shall I grovel? Shall I beg for your forgiveness?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ahh stuff it in your ear.
> > > > >
> > > > > The one single thing that I want is to let people of
> > > > > the group know with what kind of attitude you are posting
> > > > > stuffs in the group.
> > > >
> > > > Why? What have YOU contributed to this group? Honestly, who died
and
> > made
> > > > you Queen?
> > > >
> > > > Once in a while I stumble accross something that gets the group
going in
> > > > discussion. Isn't that worth while?
> > >
> > > The (hoped for) contribution is to (hopefully) have in the
> > > future less posts in the group that contain blatant lies.
> >
> > What did I lie about? The book IMHO does suck, that's not a lie, it's
an
> > opinion. Scott did say RC5/RSA/IDEA/[anything that isn't his] is weak
(I
> > posted the deja links).
> >
> > If 100% of your posts turn into a big useful discussion you either are
very
> > directed and topyical or post very little.
>
> Any one who sincerely (honestly) claims that a Dover math
> books has only 13 scientifically relavant words cannot be
> but a pure idiot in math, in my humble view.
Really?
Look at
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/dover_book.jpg
Tell me how useful [as a learning text] that would be for someone with
limited time (i.e a lifespan)
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:30:34 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tom St Denis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > you posted on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 21:24:35 +0200:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I find often the biggest problem with math
> > > > > papers/discussions
> > > > > > > > > > > > is the lack of a good language to discuss it in.
> For
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > my book on Group Theory I got (From Dover) only has
> 13
> > > > > words
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the entire text. The rest is vague human
> egyptian
> > > art
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > that future archeologists will look at and say
> "this
> > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > fire, and that's water, and ...".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This can obvioulsy never be true, or else there would
> be
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > immense scandal about the publisher Dover that has a
> good
> > > > > > > > > > > > name and whose scientific books have always been of
> good
> > > > > > > > > > > > quality, even though to a large part outdated. (BTW, I
> am
> > > > > > > > > > > > myself in posssesion of a Dover book on group theory!)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I never said the book is bad. I said it's bad to learn
> > > from.
> > > > > It's
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > good text IMHO. Koblitz's "Course in Number ..." is a
> good
> > > text
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > involves english :-)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What are you talking about here in view of the quote I
> gave
> > > > > > > > > > about your earlier post above?? Read once again your own
> > > > > > > > > > words that you had written!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > When I posted the details of the book I posted a followup to
> my
> > > own
> > > > > > > post.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm allowed to modify my statements. If you still think the
> > > book is
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > as fire starter material then you have to realize you are
> basing
> > > > > this on
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > opionion of the text not fact.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion if any.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What did you post to modify your statements BEFORE I asked
> > > > > > > > (challenged) you for the third time to post the title
> > > > > > > > and author name of the book?? And what 'details', excepting
> > > > > > > > that you now don't consider the book to be very bad and that
> > > > > > > > there exist better books??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you want? I posted the biblio of the book. Want my
> blood
> > > now
> > > > > too?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shall I grovel? Shall I beg for your forgiveness?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ahh stuff it in your ear.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The one single thing that I want is to let people of
> > > > > > the group know with what kind of attitude you are posting
> > > > > > stuffs in the group.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? What have YOU contributed to this group? Honestly, who died
> and
> > > made
> > > > > you Queen?
> > > > >
> > > > > Once in a while I stumble accross something that gets the group
> going in
> > > > > discussion. Isn't that worth while?
> > > >
> > > > The (hoped for) contribution is to (hopefully) have in the
> > > > future less posts in the group that contain blatant lies.
> > >
> > > What did I lie about? The book IMHO does suck, that's not a lie, it's
> an
> > > opinion. Scott did say RC5/RSA/IDEA/[anything that isn't his] is weak
> (I
> > > posted the deja links).
> > >
> > > If 100% of your posts turn into a big useful discussion you either are
> very
> > > directed and topyical or post very little.
> >
> > Any one who sincerely (honestly) claims that a Dover math
> > books has only 13 scientifically relavant words cannot be
> > but a pure idiot in math, in my humble view.
>
> Really?
>
> Look at
>
> http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/dover_book.jpg
>
> Tell me how useful [as a learning text] that would be for someone with
> limited time (i.e a lifespan)
I don't have the time, nor the interest (in view of the
what I know about you through the current issue) to access
your web page. Sorry.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:39:06 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Look at
> >
> > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/dover_book.jpg
> >
> > Tell me how useful [as a learning text] that would be for someone with
> > limited time (i.e a lifespan)
>
> I don't have the time, nor the interest (in view of the
> what I know about you through the current issue) to access
> your web page. Sorry.
Wow, and you call me a liar. When I try to show how boring this text really
is you don't even look. Are you related to DS?
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:44:00 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Look at
> > >
> > > http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org/dover_book.jpg
> > >
> > > Tell me how useful [as a learning text] that would be for someone with
> > > limited time (i.e a lifespan)
> >
> > I don't have the time, nor the interest (in view of the
> > what I know about you through the current issue) to access
> > your web page. Sorry.
>
> Wow, and you call me a liar. When I try to show how boring this text really
> is you don't even look. Are you related to DS?
Before you can convince others here with simple sentences
why there are only 13 scientifically relevent words in
that book (you can quote these and show in addtion,
say, a paragraph which is in your opinion scientific
non-sense, don't you?) why should anyone take any trouble
to access your web page at all?
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
