From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.87.165 with SMTP id az5mr1170303obb.50.1418652626386; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:10:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.36.138 with SMTP id p10mr27656qgp.16.1418652626346; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:10:26 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!h15no21826818igd.0!news-out.google.com!r1ni52qat.1!nntp.google.com!s7no7547973qap.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:10:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5d31987b-b96b-481b-ac4d-f87114257bb4@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=197.87.225.175; posting-account=r0RePAgAAABkc8iAou09Mtfbf-fnKQql NNTP-Posting-Host: 197.87.225.175 References: <1a2fea61-bcc1-43a9-b6e3-edf474308402@googlegroups.com> <5d31987b-b96b-481b-ac4d-f87114257bb4@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada Connections to this Crypto. From: mrvmurray@gmail.com Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:10:26 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24001 Date: 2014-12-15T06:10:26-08:00 List-Id: On Monday, 15 December 2014 15:34:17 UTC+2, Austin Obyrne wrote: > Everybody will agree that binary numbers are extremely counter intuitive and > it is a prodigious task some times to change a binary number into the equivalent > decimal number. Crap. Binary is trivial. Conversions are dead simple. > One cannot just verbalise (as they should be able to do) binary numbers as > easily as decimal numbers so those magical figments of the mathematical > imagination that often lead to theorems are far less likely to be born in such > a constrained environment than in the denary world. Maybe with you, but your limited understanding of this subject is not one that cryptographers, CS folks and mathematicians share. Very many folks can do binary<->decimal conversion on their fingers, and binary<->hex conversions in their sleep. Number theorists don't care what base their numbers are in. > This is due to the innate complexity of the binary number system. In > cryptography complexity is seen as a measurable property and cryptography > that uses complexity to obfuscate reality is simply called complexity-theoretic. Complete bullshit. > Back in the 60'/70's the US government ordained that ASCII would be the > standard in all communications - I applaud that decision and I see nothing > whatever wrong with ASCII - I like it. So do a lot off people. That is irrelevant. > What I don't like and I consider a big mistake was to represent (publicly) > the elements of ASCII in binary form and not in decimal form. What?! Are you serious? Do you really think there is some inherent difference between decimal 12, binary 1100 hexadecimal C and octal 14? The news for you is that there isn't. The human-readable representation is of no relevance at all, and the computer stores all of these as binary 00001100 in a byte. This happens to also be CR (carriage return) in ASCII if you are interpreting the byte that way. It is also called a dozen, no matter how you write it. > I conjecture that the reason for this was the innate counter-intuitiveness > of the binary number ... Total crap. > I contend that this innate complexity ... You contend wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about. > Apart from the RSA cipher which is decimal based ... RSA is not decimal based. It is numeric, and the base of the number system is if no relevance. Numbers are usually represented using a base that is convenient to the reader or writer, and this choice changes not a thing with the algorithm. The computer does it in binary, and the source code is typed in whatever the programmer likes; decimal, hex, octal, whatever. The compiler translates this to binary numbers and instructions. > My argument is that the failure to design totally unbreakable ciphers is not > being helped by using the binary number system. ... And your argument fails because of your obvious mathematical ignorance. > Common sense says that since all known number theory is decimal based Bullshit. Number theory is not decimal based. > It is not known to anyone that I know how near we are to the realisation > of Quantum Computing but rumour has that when and if it comes it may > blow binary encryption and block ciphers out of the water. Your naive understanding is showing again. Certain algorithms are vulnerable to quantum computing attacks. The best you can manage is "rumour has it ...", yet the fact of a brute-force attack on your own cipher leaves you unfazed?! And you know no more than rumour? Good grief! > In any case common sense says there are more opportunities in decimal > mathematics than in binary. Bullshit. There is no difference. > It is incredible to read just the list of titles alone of complexity-theoretic > cipher proposal papers on the web pages of the establishment. Not one of which you understand. You should call your own cipher "Ignorance-based cryptography". M --