297000+ entries in 0.194s
phf: asciilifeform: yeah, it's in backlog, i need
to make a case-insensitive version of KMP
mircea_popescu: writing a cannonizer and an algebraic operator on
this shouldn't be impossible.
mircea_popescu: getting back
to base phi :
two machine words
together, 64 bit each, encode a huge chunk of cannonical phinary numbers ; and
the machine wouldn't even have
to know
that's what it's doing.
BingoBoingo: <mircea_popescu>
the life policy carries a stated beneficiary << AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA Welcome
to USSA. Beneficiary gets life insurance policy if
they
took it out on deceased
themselves, but otherwise in USistani brokeness many
times must first pass "DOes estate have expenses
test"
mircea_popescu: there seems
to me
there's a field
to graze upon here ; without any such sillyness as "basis is cipher"
mircea_popescu: i dunno
the whole
thing.
the observation however stands
that just as
there's a way
to verify a number ISNT irrational, by
the same way in
the same manner for
the same reason
the reverse can also be verified. and
there are indeed very hard (as it is
the case here, harder
than np-complete) problems
to do with such numbers, arbitrarily chosen.
mircea_popescu: admittedly my
thinking being
that it's
time
to stop
trying
to be clever and "cheat", seeing how
the only cheated
to date is self.
mircea_popescu: it doesn't seem
there;s going
to be so much cheating here.
mircea_popescu: yes, but as long as
the notation is in an irrational base,
a111: Logged on 2016-02-10 01:34 mircea_popescu: or
to get back
to exponential space problems : "decide first order logic propositions with real numbers, adition and comparison" is a very hard problem.
mircea_popescu: we went
through a bunch of examples in one sitting, but i'm not finding it nao
mircea_popescu: nono, we were discussing hard problems and i pointed out
the russian guy with
the addition
mircea_popescu: but now
take something like... an irrational numeration base.
take for instance something like (1+sqrt(5))/2, which is... practically binary!
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform so here's what i'm
thinking : obviously
the equivocation between "NP hard" in
the sense of "it is not proven
this set is empty of NP hard edges" and NP hard in
the sense of "this set CONSISTS of NP-hard elements" is bad for crypto.
a111: Logged on 2014-06-11 00:49 asciilifeform: 'At some point during
this period, however, I realized
that
the entire problem was a complete and utter pseudo-problem. ... So I am very confident
that neither of
these
techniques, neither mine nor Sacco and Vanzetti's, has ever been used in practice.
There is no need for
them,
there has never been any need for
them, and
there will never be any need for
them. And
this was quite obvious in 1993.'
a111: Logged on 2014-06-11 00:49 asciilifeform: 'My Navrozov moment, of course, was when I approached one of
the
two - Sacco, I
think - and attempted
to have an intellectual discussion of
this realization.
The story is basically
the same as Navrozov's, so it would be boring
to repeat, but basically I came away with
the feeling
that I'd
told someone his Sicilian grandmother liked
to get drunk and fuck her own goats.'
a111: Logged on 2014-06-11 00:49 asciilifeform: 'Which, in fact, I had. Because I'd essentially
told him his research was fraudulent.
The fact
that my research was also fraudulent, and
that neither of ours was particularly noteworthy in
that regard, did not matter. And why should it? Others' crimes cannot excuse your own.'
a111: Logged on 2014-06-11 00:48 asciilifeform: 'Sacco and Vanzetti came up with an entirely different solution
to
the slow-MMU problem, one which if I do say so myself was less imaginative
than mine, but both more general and more practical.
They published
theirs in a real conference, received much acclaim for it, and I believe patented it, started a so-called company and eventually sold it
to Microsoft.'
mircea_popescu: fine, state it like
this : when someone proposes a hash, see if you can find a y for which
the reverse is
trivial.
mircea_popescu: yes, but if one proposes a f, doing
the inverse just
to see what happens is a good approach.
Framedragger: s/you claim
that/you claim
that he claims
that/
Framedragger: mircea_popescu:
this is super unimportant but under your analysis, he says
that 2 is safer
than 1. you claim
that 1 is safer
than 2. should be inverted, methinks. (the "(less safe)" refers
to 1, not
to 2.)
mircea_popescu: For any function f,
the existence of a (randomized) non-adaptive reduction of NP
to
the
task of average-case inverting f implies
that coNP ⊆ AM.
mircea_popescu: If given y one can efficiently compute |f^-1(y)|
then
the existence of a (randomized) reduction of NP
to
the
task of inverting f implies
that coNP ⊆ AM.
Thus, it follows
that such reductions cannot exist unless coNP ⊆ AM.
mircea_popescu: We consider
the possibility of basing one-way functions on NP-Hardness;
that is, we study possible reductions from a worst-case decision problem
to
the
task of average-case inverting a polynomial-time computable function f. Our main findings are
the following
two negative results:
mircea_popescu: "She does stink and she should quit. But I don't want it
to be because of me. It should be
the
traditional route; years of rejections and failures
till she's spit out
the bottom of
the porn industry."
☟︎ mircea_popescu: they're still dead, irrespective how inconvenient
that may
turn out
to be!
mircea_popescu: marx needs a name like my
turds need individual id papers.
a111: Logged on 2016-06-01 14:36 asciilifeform: or what,
the incas read marx and lenin before building
their kolhoz ?
mircea_popescu: Framedragger : he says : "1. Assume no X exists for F-ing any A's with b ; 2. Assume no X exists for F-ing all A's with b ; 1 is safer
than 2." and he is wrong.
mircea_popescu: point reimains, quite far from "flat keyspace" in
this particular sense.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform distinct prime pairs
that make a 4kb key
mircea_popescu: are
there more
than possible combinations of 6 character passwords ?
Framedragger: hm. *this* (i.e.:
that "no polynomial-time algorithm exists for factoring
the product of
two random n-bit primes with some good probability") *is* less safe as compared
to
the safer assumption
that "no polynomial-time algorithm exists for always factoring all products of
two random n-bit primes".
this is a much safer assumption cf.
to
the one you interpreted it
to mean, no? (no baiting
this
time - just honestly confused). but eh, may
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
the even more hilarious bit is
that
there just aren't
THAT MANY primes
to make different keys of a specified size.
mircea_popescu: Framedragger it should have read "
This is very different (less safe) from assuming
that no polynomial-time algorithm exists for any factoring of any products of
two random n-bit primes."
Framedragger: i don't
think 'c)' obtains? no mix-up
there. otherwise, sure, blergh re. a) and b)
mircea_popescu: but yes, what he's
trying
to copy was originally correct :
the problem with cryptosystems is
that even if
they "reference" an actual hard problem,
they don't get
to stand in for
the fucking problem itself!
they pick a case, and we've no good hardness measurers for mere cases.
mircea_popescu: "Note
the "random instances" part. For a concrete example, we might assume
that no polynomial-time algorithm exists for factoring
the product of
two random n-bit primes with some good probability.
This is very different (less safe) from assuming
that no polynomial-time algorithm exists for always factoring all products of
two random n-bit primes."
mircea_popescu: Framedragger chiefly,
that it isn't. i posit
that nothing good or useful can come of some kid at rutger's self importantly answering questions on a website because some 17 yo kid who
thinks himself
too cool for his ohio highschool asked a dumb question with
the usual smattering of wikipedia his
teachers usually A him for.
Framedragger: so wikipedia sux and sometimes you need
to glance at it,
the way a hasty businessman glances at a dubitable street food stand in a foreign city. sometimes
the
temporary "before pgp xamarin something" solution is
to glance at
that damn wikipedia. what of it
mircea_popescu: so some officious schmuck wants me
to read "the section on wikipedia" where a set of snakeoil salesmen discuss
their imaginary snake oil properties ?
the glbgbblglbvrhl!