Cryptography-Digest Digest #580, Volume #14 Sun, 10 Jun 01 13:13:01 EDT
Contents:
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)
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? (David Hopwood)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:50:47 GMT
"Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 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?
>
It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm just saying
it's not an interesting read.
Why can't you leave it at that?
tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:53:46 +0200
Tom St Denis wrote:
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
> It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm just saying
> it's not an interesting read.
>
> Why can't you leave it at that?
Because I consider it very important that intentionally
spreading untruth should stop in our 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 15:59:18 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:
> > >
> > > > > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm just
saying
> > it's not an interesting read.
> >
> > Why can't you leave it at that?
>
> Because I consider it very important that intentionally
> spreading untruth should stop in our group.
What untruth? The book really doesn't interest me. That's not 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 18:02:02 +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:
> > > >
> > > > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm just
> saying
> > > it's not an interesting read.
> > >
> > > Why can't you leave it at that?
> >
> > Because I consider it very important that intentionally
> > spreading untruth should stop in our group.
>
> What untruth? The book really doesn't interest me. That's not a lie!
The untruth is (I repeatedly said) is the claim that
that Dover book contains only 13 scientifically relevant
words. Whether the book is pedagogically good, interesting
etc. etc. has NEVER been the issue here.
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 16:12:57 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:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm just
> > saying
> > > > it's not an interesting read.
> > > >
> > > > Why can't you leave it at that?
> > >
> > > Because I consider it very important that intentionally
> > > spreading untruth should stop in our group.
> >
> > What untruth? The book really doesn't interest me. That's not a lie!
>
> The untruth is (I repeatedly said) is the claim that
> that Dover book contains only 13 scientifically relevant
> words. Whether the book is pedagogically good, interesting
> etc. etc. has NEVER been the issue here.
Let it be known here that Mok-Kong Shen has and will never use a figure of
speech or exageration or buzzword in any discussion for the duration of
his/her natural life. That every word spoken shall be as true as humanly
possible.
Whatever, this is OT, annoying and devoid of discussion. this turned into a
"yeah?" "oh yeah!" conversation. If you must continue with this discussion
I suggest you seek life elsewhere. (alt.2600 is full of loons, you might
feel at home there).
Tom
------------------------------
From: Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:18:14 +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:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm just
> > > saying
> > > > > it's not an interesting read.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can't you leave it at that?
> > > >
> > > > Because I consider it very important that intentionally
> > > > spreading untruth should stop in our group.
> > >
> > > What untruth? The book really doesn't interest me. That's not a lie!
> >
> > The untruth is (I repeatedly said) is the claim that
> > that Dover book contains only 13 scientifically relevant
> > words. Whether the book is pedagogically good, interesting
> > etc. etc. has NEVER been the issue here.
>
> Let it be known here that Mok-Kong Shen has and will never use a figure of
> speech or exageration or buzzword in any discussion for the duration of
> his/her natural life. That every word spoken shall be as true as humanly
> possible.
>
> Whatever, this is OT, annoying and devoid of discussion. this turned into a
> "yeah?" "oh yeah!" conversation. If you must continue with this discussion
> I suggest you seek life elsewhere. (alt.2600 is full of loons, you might
> feel at home there).
I have to continue, because I have to refute your stuff
above. Anyone makes mistakes. But one should acknowledge
mistakes sincerely and not attempt to cover these up,
once these are known. I wouldn't have debated with you
that long, if, on my first request about the book name,
you modified your statement sufficiently, which you haven't
done even now in my opinion.
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 16:56:57 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:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was not a literal joke. There is structure to the text, I'm
just
> > > > saying
> > > > > > it's not an interesting read.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can't you leave it at that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because I consider it very important that intentionally
> > > > > spreading untruth should stop in our group.
> > > >
> > > > What untruth? The book really doesn't interest me. That's not a
lie!
> > >
> > > The untruth is (I repeatedly said) is the claim that
> > > that Dover book contains only 13 scientifically relevant
> > > words. Whether the book is pedagogically good, interesting
> > > etc. etc. has NEVER been the issue here.
> >
> > Let it be known here that Mok-Kong Shen has and will never use a figure
of
> > speech or exageration or buzzword in any discussion for the duration of
> > his/her natural life. That every word spoken shall be as true as
humanly
> > possible.
> >
> > Whatever, this is OT, annoying and devoid of discussion. this turned
into a
> > "yeah?" "oh yeah!" conversation. If you must continue with this
discussion
> > I suggest you seek life elsewhere. (alt.2600 is full of loons, you
might
> > feel at home there).
>
> I have to continue, because I have to refute your stuff
> above. Anyone makes mistakes. But one should acknowledge
> mistakes sincerely and not attempt to cover these up,
> once these are known. I wouldn't have debated with you
> that long, if, on my first request about the book name,
> you modified your statement sufficiently, which you haven't
> done even now in my opinion.
What are you refutting? The book sucks the big one. By saying "only 13
words..." I was trying to paint a picture that the book was more math than
words. I.e it's not a good text to learn from.
When I say "That book sucks" do you think it has lips?
Seriously, this is "Time well wasted (tm)".
Tom
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:28:08 +0100
From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cubing modulo 2^w - 1 as a design primitive?
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Tom St Denis wrote:
> "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:JMsU6.70742$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Mark Wooding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Tom St Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > According to Maple, phi(2^64 - 1) == ifactor(2^64 - 2) =
> > > > ``(2)*``(7)^2*``(73)*``(127)*``(337)*``(649657)*``(92737)
> > >
> > > I've no idea what ``(.) or ifactor(.) mean.
> > >
> > > Anyway, 2^{64} - 1 = 3.5.17.257.641.65537.6700417. \lambda(2^{64} - 1)
> > > is therefore \lcm(2, 4, 16, 256, 640, 65536, 6700416) = 2^16.3.5.17449.
> > > Which has 3 as a factor.
> >
> > I thought if p is your modulus, the order is at most a multiple of p-1?
> >
> > How do you explain it being a bijection for p=255?
>
> Arrg... I'm a retard.... it's
>
> phi(2^64 - 1) = lcm(2-1,7-1,73-1,126-1,337-1,...)
>
> Right?
No. I'm guessing that ifactor(n) finds the prime factorisation of n (you
shouldn't expect people to know Maple function names). In that case,
you're factoring the wrong thing: the factorisation of 2^64 - 2 has no
relation to phi(2^64 - 1).
You're also confusing the phi and lambda functions, I think. Their
definitions are as follows:
Let p_1^e_1 * p_2^e_2 * ... * p_k^e_k be the prime factorisation of n > 1.
Then
phi(n) = product[i = 1..k](p_i^e_i - 1)
lambda(n) = lcm[i = 1..k](p_i^e_i - 1)
(HAC section 2.4 gives a different but equivalent definition for phi(n).)
> ARrg... sorry guys, I didn't give this alot of thought :-(
<cough>.
- --
David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBOyKtdjkCAxeYt5gVAQGBMgf9EDvp7HDBnVug0fFnrhd37nzQkNJ+zkhH
RsO8WvTVq8sgwgR+s5s7e41ZWFhL0nkJl6r+DtPKKHjH71CWoJEuG0o4LCz3u2nY
sWfuOmL/Izjr2g6pr5TJt75vIGhpVttXWZkQxU0UhxJvqREPc78gNpp3QAcBq+IW
QkYR+sP66LtPSxAR0rWjqyG1ECQHc9q+gtYqmIPclCTbzjR1PYn7Fmw+/b9LXem6
AKqa32lL3KReqS28etd/l2op+ue3ikiO8aEJ2ruL0TJA+H1q67DlD04ZiLxjdv8p
C1PL7KF2/ZirzKFTymzMZRHyPT5agIyfJn5Awa7A2YI19iPpqbYPjg==
=1g93
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
