Cryptography-Digest Digest #578, Volume #14 Sun, 10 Jun 01 11:13:01 EDT
Contents:
BBS question ("Tom St Denis")
Re: BBS question ("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? (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? ("Tom St Denis")
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: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy (Tim Tyler)
Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive? ("Tom St Denis")
Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy ("Tom St Denis")
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")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: BBS question
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:08:01 GMT
Nobody quite answered my original question.
Let's suppose you have a blum integer (say N=7x11=77). If we pick a seed
such as X=4 we get
4, 16, 25, 9, 4
as the outputs... Now for the funny part
4^2 + 16^2 + 25^2 + 9^2 = 4+16+25+9 (mod 77).
So far whenever I find the cycle the sum of squares is equal to the sum of
their roots.
Is that universally true or just for the 6 or so cases I have tried?
--
Tom St Denis
---
http://tomstdenis.home.dhs.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BBS question
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:08:54 GMT
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RiKU6.76438$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nobody quite answered my original question.
>
> Let's suppose you have a blum integer (say N=7x11=77). If we pick a seed
> such as X=4 we get
>
> 4, 16, 25, 9, 4
>
> as the outputs... Now for the funny part
>
> 4^2 + 16^2 + 25^2 + 9^2 = 4+16+25+9 (mod 77).
Arrg... Nevermind, I know why.
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:30:40 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was cheating on what?
> >
> > Sorry to be honest I kinda skim your posts. You kinda write in one long
> > unbroken chunk. (When you're at a computer as long as I shouldn't be it
> > looks like a mess).
> >
> > The book info.
> >
> > W.R.Scott, Professor of Mathematics, The university of Utah, "Group
> Theory",
> > Dover Publications Inc, New York.
> > ISBN 0-486-65377-3
>
> Something I want to add. It's not a "bad book" as far as correctness goes.
> Heck I can only read the first 20 pages.
>
> It's just a very bad text to LEARN from. It has a math equation to word
> ratio of 100:1...
Cheating on what? Here is what in the thread
'Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic)'
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!)
And what you responded above is demonstrating clearly and
unambigiously that you lied. (But I did intentionally give
you opportunities to correct your statements in more gentle
ways which you didn't take up.) Now everyone of the group
clearly know who you actually are.
Note you were not posting on 1st April, nor were you in a
group talk.joke. Telling the untruth on oneday and accusing
someone else (I think it was Scott whom you were attacking)
on the very next day to be a liar, is something I consider
to be really too much.
We cannot let the atmosphere of the group deteriorate like
that. The current atmosphere is already poor (e.g. with
posts asking simple math questions which definitely
properply belong to sci.math) enough in my opinion to be
able to attract more people to participate in the group.
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY)
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: 10 Jun 2001 13:47:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Tom St Denis wrote:
>>
>And what you responded above is demonstrating clearly and
>unambigiously that you lied. (But I did intentionally give
>you opportunities to correct your statements in more gentle
>ways which you didn't take up.) Now everyone of the group
>clearly know who you actually are.
>
Actaully I don't think most care about how much of a
liar TOMMY is. He will continure to HUFF and PUFF and spread
his lies. The sad part is many newbies if they don't fully
look at all messages in a thread will assume due to his volume
of writting that he knows something. I am sure future people
may even stumble into his posts on Unicity distance and his
errors about perfect security and some may actually fall for his
lies. And I am sorry to say I think you Mok are subject to much
false infromation from TOMMY but it is presented in a way that
you swallow. But I am not going to get in a long winded argument
with you. But have you yet figured out what perfect security is.
And how to apply it if you have a set of messages of varying length
that requires the ought most security or has TOMMYs lies in that
ares distorted your views.
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: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:05:36 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 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 :-)
> And what you responded above is demonstrating clearly and
> unambigiously that you lied. (But I did intentionally give
> you opportunities to correct your statements in more gentle
> ways which you didn't take up.) Now everyone of the group
> clearly know who you actually are.
>
> Note you were not posting on 1st April, nor were you in a
> group talk.joke. Telling the untruth on oneday and accusing
> someone else (I think it was Scott whom you were attacking)
> on the very next day to be a liar, is something I consider
> to be really too much.
>
> We cannot let the atmosphere of the group deteriorate like
> that. The current atmosphere is already poor (e.g. with
> posts asking simple math questions which definitely
> properply belong to sci.math) enough in my opinion to be
> able to attract more people to participate in the group.
Um just to show the crap DS has posted
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bscott+%2Brc5+%2Bkey+%2Bweak&hl=en&lr=&g
roup=sci.crypt.*&safe=off&rnum=8&ic=1&selm=7q7b7f%2417jm%242%40news.gate.net
&filter=0
or
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bscott+%2Bpay+%2Bweak&hl=en&lr=&group=sc
i.crypt.*&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=6ttfd3%2461k%241%40news.ysu.edu
or
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bscott+%2Bpay+%2Bweak&hl=en&lr=&group=sc
i.crypt.*&safe=off&rnum=6&ic=1&selm=71olhj%24h0q%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
or
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%2Bscott+%2Bpay+%2Bweak&hl=en&lr=&group=sc
i.crypt.*&safe=off&rnum=7&ic=1&selm=90A96873CH110W296LC45WIN3030R%40207.36.1
90.226
or ...
Perhaps I have been an "ass" in this group, but I think I have a bit more
credibility than DS does.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:07:13 GMT
"SCOTT19U.ZIP_GUY" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mok-Kong Shen) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >
> >Tom St Denis wrote:
> >>
>
> >And what you responded above is demonstrating clearly and
> >unambigiously that you lied. (But I did intentionally give
> >you opportunities to correct your statements in more gentle
> >ways which you didn't take up.) Now everyone of the group
> >clearly know who you actually are.
> >
>
> Actaully I don't think most care about how much of a
> liar TOMMY is. He will continure to HUFF and PUFF and spread
> his lies. The sad part is many newbies if they don't fully
> look at all messages in a thread will assume due to his volume
> of writting that he knows something. I am sure future people
> may even stumble into his posts on Unicity distance and his
> errors about perfect security and some may actually fall for his
> lies. And I am sorry to say I think you Mok are subject to much
> false infromation from TOMMY but it is presented in a way that
> you swallow. But I am not going to get in a long winded argument
> with you. But have you yet figured out what perfect security is.
> And how to apply it if you have a set of messages of varying length
> that requires the ought most security or has TOMMYs lies in that
> ares distorted your views.
Actually anyone who reads my posts KNOWS I am a "dumb kid trying to learn".
That's the point of half my discussions. (Sometimes I should think before I
post because the solution is obvious... but that's not the point).
It's funny that you claim I lie. Yes, it's true you rarely lie. In fact
you mostly state opinion which by definition cannot be a lie.
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:12:44 +0200
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!!
M. K. Shen
------------------------------
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:03:41 GMT
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I just wanted to get 're-assured' that Shannon's paper
: didn't cover the perfect security of what is called the
: conventional OTP (see Tyler's post). Now I would think
: it is apparently indeed NOT necessary to pad anything
: in most, if not all, practical situations. For normally
: a channel doesn't send only a single message but a
: number of messages. (For example communications between
: two branch offices of a firm.) We can employ the
: convention that each message has any header information
: (message number or the like) be included with the
: plaintext and all messages be concatenated. A long
: segment from the OTP source is then employed to encrypt
: the whole thing. This way the length of the individual
: messages wouldn't be available to the opponent. The
: receiver, after decryption, can separate the messages
: using the header parts. [...]
That would remedy the situation - by turning it into the infinite
stream case. You can use this if you're sending an endless
stream of messages to a given recipient.
The problem version is where the lengths of the plaintexts
are indicated directly by the lengths of the cyphertexts.
--
__________
|im |yler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:25:10 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 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.
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:26:21 GMT
"Tim Tyler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I just wanted to get 're-assured' that Shannon's paper
> : didn't cover the perfect security of what is called the
> : conventional OTP (see Tyler's post). Now I would think
> : it is apparently indeed NOT necessary to pad anything
> : in most, if not all, practical situations. For normally
> : a channel doesn't send only a single message but a
> : number of messages. (For example communications between
> : two branch offices of a firm.) We can employ the
> : convention that each message has any header information
> : (message number or the like) be included with the
> : plaintext and all messages be concatenated. A long
> : segment from the OTP source is then employed to encrypt
> : the whole thing. This way the length of the individual
> : messages wouldn't be available to the opponent. The
> : receiver, after decryption, can separate the messages
> : using the header parts. [...]
>
> That would remedy the situation - by turning it into the infinite
> stream case. You can use this if you're sending an endless
> stream of messages to a given recipient.
>
> The problem version is where the lengths of the plaintexts
> are indicated directly by the lengths of the cyphertexts.
Yes tim, but if the texts are finite the length of the ciphertext will have
a factor in determining the length of the plaintext. In the case of a
trivial OTP the relationship is linear (F(x) = x) but in the case of a new
mode of operation you get F(x) = some_function_of_x for the length...
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shannon's definition of perfect secrecy
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:52 +0200
Tim Tyler wrote:
>
> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I just wanted to get 're-assured' that Shannon's paper
> : didn't cover the perfect security of what is called the
> : conventional OTP (see Tyler's post). Now I would think
> : it is apparently indeed NOT necessary to pad anything
> : in most, if not all, practical situations. For normally
> : a channel doesn't send only a single message but a
> : number of messages. (For example communications between
> : two branch offices of a firm.) We can employ the
> : convention that each message has any header information
> : (message number or the like) be included with the
> : plaintext and all messages be concatenated. A long
> : segment from the OTP source is then employed to encrypt
> : the whole thing. This way the length of the individual
> : messages wouldn't be available to the opponent. The
> : receiver, after decryption, can separate the messages
> : using the header parts. [...]
>
> That would remedy the situation - by turning it into the infinite
> stream case. You can use this if you're sending an endless
> stream of messages to a given recipient.
>
> The problem version is where the lengths of the plaintexts
> are indicated directly by the lengths of the cyphertexts.
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
kinds to send daily (also of different security
requirements, but it wouldn't hurt if these are all
protected with better security). That is, instead of
employing 'blank messages' (if I understand the concept
correctly), one employs other available, eventually
rather non-security-sensitive messages, which one has
to send anyway, to conceal the boundaries between the
messages. That was my point.
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 16:33:47 +0200
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??
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 14:38:50 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:
> > > > > 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.
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:40:52 +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:
> > > > > > 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.
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 14:48:42 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:
> > > > > > > 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?
Tom
>
> 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
******************************
