On 12/28/2013 4:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, .... 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite incompressible strings,How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base 6999500235148669 is just 10. It took you 2 more digits to represent that number in that way.But I wouldn't have if everybody knew that our numbering system was base 6999500235148669. You should patent this and sell the compression algorithm to youtube. :-)
Actually it's a commonly used one. It's a one-time-pad; you and your communicant agree before hand on the basis or the pad and then you only have to send 10 to communicate 6999500235148668. It's the most secure form of cryptography.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
