Re: Math deck

2016-09-22 Thread Tim Ellison
Makes sense, thanks Ellison Anne and Walter. While I think I grok enough of the encryption/decryption for now, I'm still plodding through the PIR mechanism. There will be more questions ;-) Thank you for your tolerance. Regards, Tim On 22/09/16 14:45, Walter Ray-Dulany wrote: > I would like

Re: Math deck

2016-09-21 Thread Tim Ellison
With apologies for the lazy language...since there can be multiple numbers in the encryption space that map back to the same plain text number, can I simply think of this as a way that one of the encryption values is 'selected' during the encrypt process? Taking my simple example, if I encrypt

Re: Math deck

2016-09-21 Thread Tim Ellison
On 21/09/16 13:25, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > Ah, the math-magic of semantic encryption... :) (re: random zeta) > > We can certainly walk through the proof of the semantic encryption (the > random zeta) as it is quite mathematically beautiful, but it will take us > even further down the

Re: Math deck

2016-09-20 Thread Walter Ray-Dulany
> Please can you clarify, the doc for Wideskies algorithm (slide 16) says that zeta is chosen to be in (Z/N^2 Z)* -- but the code we have in Paillier.java[1] appears to be selecting for (Z/NZ)* Yes! Slide 22 (formerly slide 16) is wrong; zeta is in (Z/NZ)*. I, or someone else, can update the

Re: Math deck

2016-09-20 Thread Ellison Anne Williams
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 20/09/16 15:20, Walter Ray-Dulany wrote: > >> Is this the same as I've seen this written elsewhere as double stroked Z > >> subscript N? > > > > Most definitely. I write it the way that I do to for historical

Re: Math deck

2016-09-20 Thread Tim Ellison
On 20/09/16 15:20, Walter Ray-Dulany wrote: >> Is this the same as I've seen this written elsewhere as double stroked Z >> subscript N? > > Most definitely. I write it the way that I do to for historical reasons > (mathematical and personal). Ok, works well in ascii comments too. >> I assume

Re: Math deck (was: Re: [GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #92: [Pirk 67] - Add Slide Deck to the Website D...)

2016-09-19 Thread Walter Ray-Dulany
One explicit vote, one implicit vote for updating/clarifying the slides. I've created PIRK-69 to improve slide clarity. Unless this doesn't make sense (tell me) I'll mark PRs on this as WIPs until I've got some agreement from the community that the slides are clear enough. On Mon, Sep 19, 2016

Re: Math deck (was: Re: [GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #92: [Pirk 67] - Add Slide Deck to the Website D...)

2016-09-19 Thread Ryan Carr
Hey Walter / Tim, I just wanted to add I had some trouble similar to Tim's when trying to understand the Wideskies paper. As a person without a background in group theory/theoretical math trying to get my head around this stuff, it was very difficult for me to even find with Google what the

Re: Math deck (was: Re: [GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #92: [Pirk 67] - Add Slide Deck to the Website D...)

2016-09-19 Thread Walter Ray-Dulany
Correction: ...bby the binomial theorem, (1+N)**N = 1 + N*N + other terms divisible... I multiplied by N on the left when I ought to have exponentiated Walter On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Walter Ray-Dulany wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Apologies! It's disorienting at first,