64400+ entries in 0.016s
mircea_popescu: and in other "asian people should just be holocausted" news : piece of shit router, gets set up to work on static ip, spews out the helpful error message of "the value can't be equal". verbatim. and the source of it is a pile of inclusion gnarl so you can't even trivially debug the nonsense THAT way.
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz : miicard.com. "The only way to prove you are who you say you are purely online"
mircea_popescu: nature provides precious few materials of comparable quality for this particular purpose. cuz it has to be soft and occlusive and so on, contrary engineering requirements.
mircea_popescu: (well known hotel on 61st st (ie, by central park) in ny)
mircea_popescu: they'll "offer you" to take them and set their fat ass down in a $5mn apartment in a condo overlooking the pierre.
mircea_popescu: ie, a haskell so pure it doesn't even run on machines, it's paper only.
mircea_popescu: because neither of these, even if wrung into acceptability in the most theoretical sense, come with any sort of even vague hope of a possibility of a guarantee of computability.
mircea_popescu: i'd propose as heuristics from this that the moment anyone proposes either a) a computable corolary of ZFC, no matter its kind or b) a computable corolary of AOC, no matter its kind, we're lost for reason.
mircea_popescu: seems to me the main reason $item stood out to your examination is that in a sea of former fools you finally found a latter kind.
mircea_popescu: so to sum this up in our lingua franca : one kind of fool says "this confuses me and therefore must be hard". the OTHER kind of fool says "this seems immediately beautiful and to my eyes elegant and therefore must be easy".
mircea_popescu: f "has it" in a sense of having very mathematical altogether.
mircea_popescu: so what help is it, "any f has its g" if g is in point of fact incomputable, at ALL.
mircea_popescu: anyway. my point is that the idea that "a practical implementation of the axion of choice always exists" is way WAY further out there than simply thje axiom of choice. WAY. because even "trivial" things (find the coprime n powers that sum to cube) are in point of FACT, know, proven, concrete poured and long dry, strictly incomputable.
mircea_popescu: right, but what i'm saying is that the original article is much in this vein.
mircea_popescu: right, but that's the very important point there, you don't get it without mutialrtion.
mircea_popescu: it's the converse of the modular math / elliptic curves geometry equivalence.
mircea_popescu: the 3 case is proven by euler. the > 3 case flows from you know, wiles' work.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform no cube can be written as a sum of two co-primes raised to the power of three or above.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you understand this is actually impossible, yes ?
mircea_popescu: none of this is dispositive ; what i'm saying here is that im pretty sure i read this, and it didn't come through as much more than tyhe usual math grad wank to me.
mircea_popescu: and it requires more than that, if you step out of haskell and try to c, nonsense such as "universal computability", which falls apart the moment you are invited to do relatively "simple" things such as write cubes as sums of coprimes raised to large powers.
mircea_popescu: heck, i recently linked to some lulz discussing that. recall cads and his fabled gf ?
mircea_popescu: no i mean the result. "if the classes are separate". well...
mircea_popescu: body parts seeping from the ground in a swamp and such ?
mircea_popescu: but speech is certainly a perversion, so this argument is hard to bring.
mircea_popescu: all the people going "oh, it's against nature" have NO FUCKING IDEA whatsoever as to nature.
mircea_popescu: one of the most fascinating things about anal perversity is that the colon seems particularily eager to enter dual use regime.
mircea_popescu: a...ficcionados (lol) can readily resolve the problem though : douche the girl, then anally feed her a banana for buffer, then load her up in whatever flavour you favour and then proceed to dinner.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: actually i recall at some point bring well known super -NP, proven as such, classes.
mircea_popescu: the evidently philosophically correct formulation is the second, being positive not negative.
mircea_popescu: in any case, the former statement is an exercise in psychotic nonsense. how the fuck can you demand someone NOT be able to whatever.
mircea_popescu: i suppose to get fancy we're inquiring whether information is quantified. fine.
mircea_popescu: but anyway, there's a difference between "it in principle exists" and anything useful.
mircea_popescu: "in any amount of water there's some nonzero information as to the original solutes"
mircea_popescu: for instance, the dillutionists propose a similar view of solutions.
mircea_popescu: (this being something i suspect mpfhf fambly MAY be amenable to proving, but i've yet to get anywhere)
mircea_popescu: "for as long as the plaintext went through alfhash, it is known as a mathematical fact, irrespecvtive of any considerations, that so many steps must be undertaken to undo it"
mircea_popescu: whereas in the correct, crypto-relevant understanding of "hash is hard", what is said is "B can make grounded promise that his effort will require at least X work"
☟︎ mircea_popescu: in the common understanding of "hash is hard", what is said is "B can not make any grounded promise that his effort will require less than X work for an arbitrary item chosen by A"
mircea_popescu: a modelling in which b knows the plaintext breaks this definition, and it is therefore not interesting.
mircea_popescu: the correct measurement of hash strength includes two parties, defined as : party A, which knows the plaintext and computes the hash ; and party B, which does not know the plaintext and computes it on the basis of nothing but the hash.
mircea_popescu: i don't care that "on average it's 5 trillion but for the value you chose it's two weeks"
mircea_popescu: what interests me, when you say "alfhash is 5 trillion hours strong" is that ANY VALUE i pass into alfhash will be reversed in NO LESS than 5 trillion hours.
mircea_popescu: trivially the average, weighted or not, will be inside the domain and not the lower bound of the domain.
mircea_popescu: the point of interest for the "max case" is b. the point of interest to us is a. the "average case" is either a+b/2 or else ni * weight i / sum i.
mircea_popescu: consider the work required to reverse it has been calculated for each value, and is in the domain [a, b].
mircea_popescu: suppose there's a function that does hashing over a domain consisting of 2^100 possible distinct values.
mircea_popescu: we're not discussing that nonsense. we're discussing the actual blind case.
mircea_popescu: average case has no value for this later branch ; has some limited value for the former branch, to see how "eccentric" the upper bound is.
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2017-09-28#1718015 << minimum case. the average case is of relatively little interest here. what interests is hardest case, to design solutions for problems (what is currently 100% of all theoretic work done), and minimum case, to guarantee hardness, which is 0% of work done and 100% of republican interest.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: best do it upfront than fucking your own ass with boxes and bs.
mircea_popescu: not necessarily the specific example. but yes, symmetric cipher always reduces to a "parametrized otp".
☟︎ mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes yeah, not bad. i still hold that's the ~only avenue to the problem.
mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo anyway, why is the idea WH was supporting strange ? didn't like, trump beleete his support tweets and errythang ?