On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:40:03 CDT, Brian Loe said: > On 6/5/07, der Mouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think so. I actually haven't seen any solutions to the problem > > as propounded. All the "solutions" I've seen don't prove anything to > > anyone until after the "proof" recipient has found Waldo - this may > > have been acceptable by the intent of the original author of the > > problem, but it's sure not how I read the wording. > > > > That's not true. If I give you coordinates from some reference point > to where Waldo is, and you can't find Waldo (you give up and want me > to prove that I did find him) I simply give you my reference point > (same as I would have had you found Waldo). You then follow those > coordinates to Waldo and see that I knew what I was talking about. If > you can't find the reference point and give you coordinates to it from > a mutually known point (the upper left hand corner of the page, etc.).
Again, that's a case of "You give information up front that later allows you to show that you did know where Waldo is". Until the person gives up, they can't *verify* that you knew where Waldo was. The question is "give sufficient info so that they can verify *now* that *you* know where it is, *without* giving away the location. You've given them a sealed envelope that you claim contains a picture of the kidnap victim. That's different from giving them a picture they can clearly see and verify.
pgpsiBa7r0Jp6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
