Re: Ada Connections to this Crypto.

[mrvmurray@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 16 December 2014 10:53:04 UTC+2, Austin Obyrne  wrote:
> I don't profess to be anything in the way of an Ada developer or a cryptography
> developer but when one comes up with an algorithm that is demonstrably
> irreversible then that's it ...

Stop lying. Your cipher was bust by brute force - trivially.

> ... - the mathematics don't lie and the mathematician cannot lie successfully
> in the face of all the known and time proven theorems.

No, but you can and do. You ignore and dismiss the inconvenient facts.

> It's simple - anybody even a person totally unrelated to cryptography
> can come up with a successful algorithm - a cab driver, a doctor of
> medicine, anybody.  There is no apprenticeship to be served, no defence
> to be made for having tried, no need to vindicate oneself to so-called pros 
> - all it needs is the mathematical proof.

You do not have a mathematical proof and you never had one. You have a crap
cipher with many faults and you don't have the talent to understand these.

> Spotting bases for algorithms is an art.  It helps if one has a very broad
> background of *Applied maths and even then there is a specially aptitude 
> needed.

Which you don't have.
> One never sets out to write an algorithm - you keep the general idea in your
> head and when opportunity knocks you answer by doggedly pursuing even the
> slightest whiff of an idea - figment of the imagination, conjecture, copious
> testing, claim, theorem - that's the order.

Very little of which you did. No useful testing, no understanding of the relevant
theory, no study of the relevant background.

That could be done by a talented individual. It has not been done by you. You do
not have a broad background in any form of mathematics, in fact your mathematical
talent is horrible.

> In my view there are no associates (camp followers) of cryptography - you are
> in it to write algorithms - nothing else.

Your view is irrelevant.
 
> Mt background is in ship propulsion - I was Chief Engineer in the British Merchant
> Navy for most of my life - I also have a very large background in power generation
> stations , factories. Inspection work and much more.

But very little real mathematics, cryptography or computer science.

> My basic career qualification is more of a License (Ministry of Transport Certificate
> of Competency as Chief Engineer) to operate rather than an academic one and it
> follows an apprenticeship at the bench.  I attained a Fellowship of my Institute
> followed by Chartered Engineer Registration (40 years ago)  and I have studied
> Pure and Applied Maths on a Degree course at University.

Your university-level mathematics appears to have been forgotten. Did you pass?
Did you get the degree in Maths? Did you do maths courses at major level?

Your demonstrated understanding of number theory suggests you learned little or
have forgotten a great deal.

> I was pitched into cryptography accidentally when I asked another mathematician
> to read my invention of 'vector factoring'.

This is not a useful concept in mathematics.

> None of this is important to the ciphers in hand - the point I am making is that the
> skill of spotting algorithms is dependent to a great extent on one's creative instincts
> in mathematics.

It can be, yes.

> I my view proper cryptography does not yet exist - it will come eventually and like
> everything else that lasts it will be underpinned by well-established decimal
> mathematical methods.

With this you revert to speaking from ignorance with too much unwarranted authority.

> Of the three disciplines that are involved i.e. cryptography, mathematics and
> programming the most important one is the one comes naturally to some of us
> - that is the  ability to spot algorithms - it can be acquired with time by others
> but it must be there somehow in order to write cipher algorithms.

You miss the very important point of being able to recognise and spot problems,
which you simply can't do.

> Everything else that purports to be worth posting is just playing with the box
> that cryptography comes in.

Meaningless waffle.

> No. I am not a 'nutcase' to be humoured good-naturedly - that's the face-saving
>  escape hatch for the under-achievers to brand me as such.  Its quite amusing
> to hear the no-hopers spouting on about my perceived shortcomings not having
> written anything of note themselves.

Yeah, yeah. Go and learn some maths, and read about the subject of crypto before
spouting forth like the expert you are not.

Until you can properly define terms like "key", "key stream", "key schedule" and
so forth without demonstrating colossal cluelessness, you need to shut up and
take your place at the table like the newbie you are.

The same goes for your mathematical knowledge - your number radix confusion
is crippling your understanding.

As for computing, you program like a child, but without the learning, the willingness
to experiment and the flexibility.

M
--