Cryptography-Digest Digest #164, Volume #9 Sun, 28 Feb 99 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Testing Algorithms ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Testing Algorithms ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Define Randomness ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: A New Public-Key Cryptosystem (Cryptoad)
Re: Testing Algorithms (R. Knauer)
Re: Testing Algorithms (R. Knauer)
Re: Testing Algorithms [moving off-topic] (R. Knauer)
Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!! ("Trevor Jackson, III")
Re: Define Randomness (R. Knauer)
Re: Testing Algorithms (R. Knauer)
Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!! (BRAD KRANE)
Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!! (R. Knauer)
Re: Define Randomness ("Trevor Jackson, III")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:39:34 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms
R. Knauer wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 19:54:45 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >False. Gravity stretches objects along an axis parallel to the gravity vector and
> >compresses them in the plane normal to the gravity vector. These relative forces
>are
> >called tides.
>
> You are talking about the gravitational field that comes from general
> relativity.
No.
> I was talking about the Newtonian gravitational field that
> applies to a point mass.
So was I. How do you think tides are explained under Newtonian mechanics???
>
>
> >The irreversibilty and comcomitant loss of energy is the internal friction that
>resists
> >the deformation of the object by the tidal forces. Only a tidally locked object
>(whose
> >rotation matches its revolution) avoids tidal frictions.
>
> The assumption is that all entities are frictionless, so any energy
> that is stored in internal states will be reversibly returned when the
> cycle is complete.
>
> >Note that even the case of mutually locked bodies the system eventually degenerates
>due
> >to loss of orbital energy during interactions with the cosmic background radiation.
>
> That is hardly an example of a Newtonian conservative force field.
>
> Bob Knauer
>
> "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
> you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
> cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
> can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
> most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
> -- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:50:29 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms
Somniac wrote:
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Trevor Jackson, III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >fungus wrote:
> >
> > >> "Trevor Jackson, III" wrote:
> >
> > >> > There is no minimum energy per reversible computation. There is a
> > >> > minimum energy per irreversible computation. Between these two true
> > >> > statements lies lots of room for misunderstanding.
> >
> > >> *something* has to trigger a change of state...
> >
> > >Yes. There is no claim to perpetual motion. Every state change has to be
> > >driven by some expenditure of energy. But, there is no limit on how small
> > >that amout of energy can be when the computation is reversible. Thus, it
> > >can be arbitrarily, ridiculously small. Efffectively zero even though not
> > >actually zero.
> >
> > This is off-topic for this group, but it still needs addressing.
> >
> > The problem is NOT to produce state changes with extremely low
> > energy; this is not difficult. It is to produce state changes
> > which will not reverse spontaneously or from transient noise.
> > A "permanent" magnet illustrates the situation; it has a large
> > hysteresis loop, which means that most of the energy in changing
> > its state goes off in heat, but this keeps it stable. Computer
> > memory, and also the state of more accessible units, is like this;
> > changeable, but not too easily so. The latter is what is needed
> > to keep it from being lost.
> > --
> > This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> > are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> > Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
>
> Yes, true. And expand upon this wishful thinking about computing 2^256
> answers without heating up the Earth by 99 degrees, consider the Carnot
> Cycle using reversible adiabatic processes. No container has ever been
> built which provides reversible adiabatic processes. Insulators are not
> perfect, so some heat leaks out. Therefore, no one has ever built an
> ideal Carnot engine. In addition, the intake temperature of a heat engine
> must be lower than the exhast temperature.
>
> In general, physical systems are "idealized" for mathematical teachings,
> to illustrate a point for students. In reality, there have always been
> frictions and losses for computing machines and any machines. Even
> superconductors require work to get the helium, to make the generators,
> to assemble the batteries.
>
> Even gravity has costs so that its conservative potential effects have a
> cost: make your own planet, then conserve energy during future idealized
> experiments on an isolated partical (which has never existed in the
> past). Or use our planet and pretend that it is absolutely free of cost.
> It takes a force outside of an idealized experimental apparatus to show
> for students, an "isolated" reversible process.
>
> To make 2^256 calculations, there is not present device which can
> succeed. Future developments cannot relied upon to create perpetual
> motion computers that have reversible adders, nand gates, and memory. The
> past shows that most inventions failed to become practical.
OK, once more from the top.
First, please ignore the silliness about idealization. We do not need to have
conservative forces or frictionless sufaces. Just really good hardware with
entropy (and Murphy).
If there *is* a minimum energy cost per fundamental operation (add, xor, etc.)
then there is a non-negotiable minimum energy cost to handle 2^256 calcs which is
at least 2^256 times the fundamental operation cost. Since 2^256 is so big any
fixed coefficient representing energy cost implies huge energy costs for the whole
series of calculations.
If there *is not* a fundamental cost per operation then computation can be
arbitrarily efficient. Not perfectly efficient, just really close. Within (say)
one in 2^256 parts of perfect. Given the ability to make computation arbitrarily
cheap in terms of energy any number of calculations, even 2^256, can be performed
on a reasonable energy budget.
Now the engineering to get that close to perfect is going to be tough, but there
is no equivalent to Plank or Heisenberg proving that it is not possible even in
theory.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:55:43 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Define Randomness
R. Knauer wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:41:44 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Experiment is irrelevant to theoretical proofs. Note that experimental
> >evidence may lead us to have more or less confidence in a theory, but it is
> >not proof.
>
> I do not know where you are getting this from, because it is certainly
> not from contemporary physics. Almost all important theories arose and
> were confirmed by experiment.
Contemporary physics.
Confirmation is not proof. Not even close. It is subject to revision in the face
of contrary data, a better theory, or discovery of errors in the experimental
measurements.
Did The eclipse measurements "prove" relativity correct? Of course not. We know
now that the errors in the measurements were of the same scale as the effects being
measured.
Proof is not subject to revision.
>
>
> Physics is an empirical science which by definition infers theoretical
> constructs from direct observations. The fact that theories work so
> well is a mystery, possible tied up in pac-learning induction. Occam's
> Razor is widely used and it is a form of pac-learning.
>
> Bob Knauer
>
> "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
> you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
> cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
> can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
> most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
> -- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cryptoad)
Subject: Re: A New Public-Key Cryptosystem
Date: 1 Mar 1999 01:00:59 GMT
many thanx bryan for your concise and understandable reply...i suspect that
Craig may email you for details of the Gaussian elimination procedure.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:05:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:50:00 -1000, Somniac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To make 2^256 calculations, there is not present device which can
>succeed. Future developments cannot relied upon to create perpetual
>motion computers that have reversible adders, nand gates, and memory. The
>past shows that most inventions failed to become practical.
How about quantum computers?
Bob Knauer
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:07:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:22:26 +0000, Withheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>As to whether or not we will ever have the computing power available to
>brute force a 256-bit key, take a guess - who knows what breakthroughs
>are around the corner?
Yeah, like quantum computers, eh.
Bob Knauer
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms [moving off-topic]
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:06:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:29:43 GMT, Darren New <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> > One photon?
>> A photon of what energy? Are we talking gamma rays or radio waves?
>My point is that if your key is 2^300 long, there are fewer than 2^300
>photons in the universe, regardless of the energy involved.
Are there fewer than 2^300 eigenstates in the Universe, taking quantum
interference into account?
Bob Knauer
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:14:05 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Shall we discuss sci.crypt.knauer?
R. Knauer wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:53:35 GMT, BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >If nothing existed there cannot be any Laws or the such because there
> >is nothing to base them on.
> >With that in mind any thing could happen in this time span where nothing
> >exists including this all of a sudden violent explosion and creation of a
> >universe.
>
> There is one most fundamental thing that cannot happen. Finite objects
> cannot come into existence at all, no matter how you propose that to
> happen.
>
> The idea that Nothing causes the Existence of Something, whatever it
> may be, leads one to conclude that Nothing exists, which contradicts
> experience, at least for those who adhere to the worldview of Realism.
>
> > What I'm stating is that there doesn't need to be cause for some thing
> >to happen if there is nothing there to begin with.
>
> There must be an efficient cause of existence per se. A finite object
> does not come into existence on its own, otherwise its essence would
> be to exist, in which case it would be immutable. But the objects of
> physical reality are mutable, therefore their essence cannot be to
> exist, so there must be a separate entity that is the source of their
> existence. This entity has an essence that is existence, and that
> fulfills your notion of an uncaused entity.
>
> The problem with trying to apply uncausality to the Universe itself is
> that if you do, it would of necessity have certain properties that it
> simply does not have. It would necessarily be infinite in duration,
> which the Big Bang tells us it is not. It would necessarily be
> infinite in extent, which the Big Bang tells us it is not. It would
> necessarily be immutable, which the empirical sciences tell us it is
> not. And so on.
>
> Why not imagine that the process of uncausality is applied to an
> entity which then causes finite mutable reality to exist. I do not see
> that in so doing you give up any generality. One thing you gain is
> that you avoid many fatal inconsistencies.
>
> And we are not talking about the "God" of Establishment Religion
> either. The Supreme Being of existential metaphysics is not a
> religious concept. There is no faith or belief involved in arriving at
> the tenents of existential metaphysics. It is a completely self
> contained rational system that builds off of physics. That is why it
> is called a Meta Physics.
>
> The fact that the catholic church uses Aquinas, the founder of
> existential metaphysics, to bolster their dogmas overlooks the fact
> that Aquinas himself was placed on Index of Forbidden Books right
> after he died.
>
> His ideas challenged many of the doctrines of catholicism of that era
> (late 13th century), so in typical fashion of any establishment they
> demonized him. The only reason he was ever grabbed off the trash heap
> of dogmatism was that the Jesuits needed a poster boy and he was
> available.
>
> Aquinas also published much in the area of political philosophy, and
> was a significant inspirational force behind the explosion in liberty
> that occured in England. If you read Locke you will think you were
> reading Aquinas. In fact, it is true to some extent that Aquinas
> anticipated the formation of America, not as an act of history but as
> an act of political philosophy, because he argued that tyrannicide was
> not only justified but required by natural law.
>
> It was that doctrice of tyrannicide that comes thru in the Declaration
> Of Independence, right along with the moral imperatives of natural law
> - such as the concept of inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.
>
> So when you study Aquinas's works you are not just fooling around with
> some two-bit establishment philosopher. Aquinas was a radical
> intellectual whose thought shook up the Western world, just as Christ
> shook up the Hebrew world and Mohammed the Saracen world before him.
> In fact, Aquinas freely borrowed not onlt from the Greek but also from
> the Jews and the Saracens, making him the real renaissance
> philosopher, but just a bit ahead of his time.
>
> Bob Knauer
>
> "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
> you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
> cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
> can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
> most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
> -- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Define Randomness
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:12:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:55:43 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Proof is not subject to revision.
Oh really? What if the axioms are wrong?
BTW, where did those axioms come from anyway?
Bob Knauer
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Testing Algorithms
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:10:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:39:34 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was talking about the Newtonian gravitational field that
>> applies to a point mass.
>So was I. How do you think tides are explained under Newtonian mechanics???
OK then, I remind you that the devices we have been discussing are
loss free.
Superconductive systems are loss free. Superfluid systems are loss
free. We do not need to appeal to science fiction to find examples.
Bob Knauer
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:16:48 GMT
Quantum Physics is only 100 years old or so and like all sciences the odds that
there theories
of why things happen are usually wrong. Take theories on heat for example, people used
to think
that it was an invisible liquid that flowed in and out of things making them hot.
Where they ever
wrong, and hay where wrong about what heat is even today. Taking that into
consideration I'm
inclined to look at Quantum Physics with GREAT criticism until it has a chance to
evolve witch it
wont in my life time.
~NuclearMayhem~
"R. Knauer" wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 23:58:55 GMT, BRAD KRANE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes that is true but doen't that state that every thing that happens is linked
>back to the
> >initial state of the universe.
>
> That's the case in classical physics, but certainly not in quantum
> physics.
>
> As a quantum system evolves, it does so nondeterministically under the
> influence of a unitary transformation called the Evolution Operator,
> which comes from Schrodinger's Equation (or equivalently from other
> formalisms like those of Heienberg and Dirac).
>
> Only when the wavevector collapses due to an interaction with the
> environment, including the quantum vacuum, does it produce results
> that appear classical in the limit of large quantum numbers.
>
> Bob Knauer
>
> "If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
> you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
> cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
> can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
> most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
> -- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: True Randomness - DOES NOT EXIST!!!
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 01:30:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:14:05 -0500, "Trevor Jackson, III"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Shall we discuss sci.crypt.knauer?
What's wrong with sci.crypt?
Bob Knauer
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong, then
you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of grit will
cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are utterly random, nothing
can make them more disordered. Complete randomness at the heart of things is the
most stable situation imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:34:57 -0500
From: "Trevor Jackson, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Define Randomness
R. Knauer wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 07:07:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Ritter) wrote:
>
> >But your theoretical advantage does not necessarily extend into and
> >through the detector. Can you *show* that the act of detecting the
> >decay byproduct is *also* "completely independent"? Can you PROVE it?
>
> I once did just that. You use your system to produce the Mossbauer
> spectrum under carefully controlled conditions that can be done to
> within an arbitrarily small error. The usual system was the 14.4 kev
> K-capture system of Co-57/Fe-57. At low temperatures where the
> Debye-Waller factor is largest, there is a very clean Mossbauer
> spectrum available, one that can be tested for Lorentzian line shape
> using non-linear regression technoques. If you provide enough data,
> you can get the overall test to prove experimentally that the decay is
> truly random to an incredible level of precision.
>
> In fact that system is so sensitive that one can actually measure the
> change in photon energy as the photons climb a gravitational potential
> (Pound's experiments), and also in an inertial environment. In the
> gravitational environment the source of radioactive decay was placed
> on the first floor and the detector on a higher floor and the
> Mossbauer spectrum was measured. The energy difference was attributed
> to the effect of gravity on the photon - and it agreed with general
> relativity exactly. In the inertial environment the source was at the
> center of a centrifuge and the detector (actually the Mossbauer
> absorber) was at the periphery of the centrifuge. The change in energy
> was attributed to inertial effects and agreed with eneral relativity
> exactly.
>
> So here you have this incredibly precise probe that can be used to
> demonstrate the true randomness of radioactive decay.
Note the key word here: "demonstrate". While this is an extremely convincing
demonstration, it is not a proof. No matter how many events you pile up
(statistically), you do not have a proof, merely a statistical expression with very
high confidence.
------------------------------
** 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 (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
