Cryptography-Digest Digest #382, Volume #11 Tue, 21 Mar 00 21:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: Factoring Large Numbers - I think I figured it out! ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: Factoring Large Numbers - I think I figured it out! (Xcott Craver)
Re: Non-doublespending offline digital money? (Nick Tamer)
Re: Non-doublespending offline digital money? (David A Molnar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Factoring Large Numbers - I think I figured it out!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 16:48:57 -0000
> How are those checksums calculated?
I'm really not sure, all I did was copy and paste the
information. If you need more information send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Both
addresses will send you e-mails giving more details.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Xcott Craver)
Subject: Re: Factoring Large Numbers - I think I figured it out!
Date: 22 Mar 2000 01:01:22 GMT
Mr. Hein,
Let me supplement Bob's response. This, I think, sums up the
various issues with your claims to a fast factoring method.
Firstly, on the technical side: you don't need to "build" a
factoring machine or computer to utilize a factoring method. If you
have a fast factoring method, you can just write it as a computer
program. No knowledge of "electric circuits" is necessary. No
building of any thing is necessary.
Further, there shouldn't be any reason why any factoring method,
implemented as a computer program, should be limited to circa 10
digits in the short term. Maybe it will take you a few months
to learn a computer language and write the program; after that,
if your method (algorithm) really is better than what presently
exists, it should be able to break much larger numbers right off
the bat.
On the theory side: you say "we will be able to factor any number,"
almost as if it's something we don't even know how to do. We
already know how to factor numbers, just not quickly enough.
It's not as if a method hasn't been discovered yet; the statement
that factoring large numbers "can not be done" means that, for
reasonably large numbers, no known method will work in any sane
amount of time given any possible amount of computing power.
I get the impression that you are unfamiliar with computer
programming, with algorithms, with the speed of present computers,
and possibly with the real-world parameters of the factoring problem.
I wonder how you can know if your factoring method is "fast" or
"faster," since this requires some ability to analyze the running
times of algorithms.
Then, on the intellectual property side: there is really no
reason you need to keep your method secret. Rather, if you really
had a fast factoring method, it would be in your best interest to
disclose it as soon as possible. This is not something you can
make money off of, but such a discovery would make you famous.
Hence your goal would be publication rather than secrecy. There
is no risk either of someone "stealing" your idea. Indeed, if
there was, your best bet would still be to publish everything
as soon as possible to prevent anyone else from publishing first.
Finally, on the subject of cranks: it _is_ a common property of
cranks to keep their alleged mathematical discoveries under a veil
of secrecy as if it was a highly profitable invention. In reality,
there is no million dollars waiting for someone who discovers an
impossible way to trisect an angle with a straightedge and compass;
or, epsilon more feasibly, someone who discovers a short proof of
Fermat's Last Theorem.
I believe that there is an amalgam of causes for this belief.
Cranks are confused enough about what it is they are studying
that they don't realize that, say, compass constructions have no
commercial value. There is also, commonly, a belief in conspiracy,
of an establishment capable of covering up and stealing ideas,
often fueled by negative reaction to one's own ideas. Another
possibility is that non-academics (maybe just in America) just
figure that a big bag of money is the reward for discovering
anything, that people pursue this stuff for the same reason people
seek buried treasure. Finally, there is always the reluctance to
disclose out of fear that one just might be wrong.
Anyways, I'm babbling. In sum, go ahead and describe your
factoring method. Chances are that people on this group could
quickly check your work, if your description is clear. It
would be public enough that there is no need to fear someone
stealing credit for it (the whole world can see your post,) etc.
Tell ya what: if it really is a world-beater, I'll help you
implement it as a program :D
-Scott
------------------------------
From: Nick Tamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-doublespending offline digital money?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:19:06 +0100
The answer is in quantum crypto systems: when you observe its state you
destroy it and thus you can't spend it again - unfortunately they aren't
yet widely used ;-)
matt wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Could anyone tell me if it is theoretically/physically possible to
> have a digital cash system which is offline, and prevents double
> spending?
>
> Just thinking about it, it seems impossible. But maybe someone knows
> some really tricky maths etc...?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt.
------------------------------
From: David A Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-doublespending offline digital money?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 01:24:13 GMT
I seem to recall that digital cash was one of the first (maybe the first?)
application of quantum mechanics to cryptography. For exactly this
reason: try to copy a state and you end up destroying it.
I can't remember a reference. Does this ring a bell for anyone else?
Thanks,
-David
Nick Tamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The answer is in quantum crypto systems: when you observe its state you
> destroy it and thus you can't spend it again - unfortunately they aren't
> yet widely used ;-)
> matt wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> Could anyone tell me if it is theoretically/physically possible to
>> have a digital cash system which is offline, and prevents double
>> spending?
>>
>> Just thinking about it, it seems impossible. But maybe someone knows
>> some really tricky maths etc...?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
