On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Trei, Peter wrote:
> My point, I hope it is clear, was to prove that there are deterministic
> algorithms which do not repeat.
There are, AND they are continous and -not- based on NOT-AND-OR. I
-never- said there were not deterministic algorithms but then again those
algorithms won't run on a digital computer without losing precision which
-proves- my point, not yours.
Thanks.
> When Jim realized what an fool
> he'd made of himself, he decided to change the subject;
You're the fool, lying and then expecting me not to call you on it.
> first by claiming this would be a pretty lousy PRNG to use for a cipher
Pi -is- a pretty lousy seed for anything. You are of course welcome to cut
your own head off any time you want any way you want. I'll be a tad more
cautious and considerate of the future and unknowns.
> (of course it is
Unhuh, keep telling yourself that...
- my point concerned repeated sequences, not
> making a good cipher), and then to blather about k-distribution
> (which may be a characteristic of a good PRNG, but is irrelevant
> to my point).
If you don't understand the importance of k-distribution to what a RNG can
do then you don't know as much as you think. You should perhaps read
Knuths blathering on the subject, you might learn something.
> I suspect the if Jim were correct, he might actually
> have a solution to the Halting Problem
There is no solution to the Halting Problem, silly goose. And that you
think there could be is a prime example of the level you operate at.
Peter, as usual, you're full of shit.
--
____________________________________________________________________
The law is applied philosophy and a philosphical system is
only as valid as its first principles.
James Patrick Kelly - "Wildlife"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
