Cryptography-Digest Digest #614, Volume #14 Thu, 14 Jun 01 22:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: survey ("Tom St Denis")
Re: CipherText E-mail encryption ("Joseph Ashwood")
Re: HELP WITH RSA ENCRYPTION/DECRYPTION INCLUDING GARNER CRT ALGORITHM (tE!)
Re: Top Secret Crypto (tE!)
Re: Avoiding RSA padding altogether? (Benjamin Goldberg)
Re: survey ("Paul Pires")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo (Zonn)
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Substitution Humor! (Zonn)
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Paul Pires")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo ("Boyd Roberts")
Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and Large
Primes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: survey
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:11:37 GMT
"Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:uPhCXVS9AHA.302@cpmsnbbsa07...
>
> "Sam Yorko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I (and everybody in the WLAN 802.11 community) would be >very<
> > interested in something like this. With the amazing number of attacks
> > against RC4 being published, we would welcome a better solution for
> > encryption of the data stream.
>
> Any thoughts on what would be good for 802.11? In terms of maximum ROM
> space, and maximum RAM space. Since RC4 is considered suitable I presume
> that 256 bytes of RAM is available, for 512 bytes of RAM I can make this
> conceptually easier to express, but it can be done with a small counter
and
> 256 bytes of RAM. I was hoping to use 2 8bit to 8bit SBoxes, so it would
> also take 512 bytes of ROM. It looks to be extremely hardware efficient,
but
> more costly than RC4 in software. Additionally what output size would be
> most appropriate, I can easily express it for 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256,
512,
> or 1024, although the smaller than 1024 will actually take more RAM (max
512
> bytes) and more time per iteration, but be more secure. The per key
> initialization is significantly faster than RC4, requiring the time to
> repeat the key until the state is filled, and then the time to pull a (as
> yet undetermined) number of outputs to diffuse the state. I'll work on
> formalizing the concept tonight, planning on 256 bytes and a 128-bit
output,
> but I should be able to change it easy enough. Feel free to reply
privately,
> or to the group.
I would be interested in seeing pseudo code.
Personally I would make a new stream cipher based on a LFSR or LFG since
they have known periods and decent statistical properties. All you have
todo is make a correlation or linear attack hard.
I have 8x1 sboxes you could use if you want to compress bits. They are not
made with correlation immunity in mind [primarily because I don't know that
that means]. they are nonlinear and SAC compliant.
SAC means Strict Avalanche Criterion. I.e flipping any input bit (any
single) will flip the output bit 1/2 of the time.
I presume correlation immunity would mean the output is 0 or 1 with a prob
of 1/2 when any combo of bits (less than 8) are held constant. But that's
just a guess ...
Tom
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Ashwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CipherText E-mail encryption
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:06:29 -0700
"Prichard, Chuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gdbW6.1152$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I contend that your opinion on the message integrity of a CXT file is
> based on what you know about encryption and not what you know about the
> CipherText algorithm itself.
Which might actually mean something if I had addressed message integrity at
all, instead I address the message security. You really should get your
concepts straight before you actually try to do anything.
>
> I am finished making claims about its purported strength and im working
> on useful niche applications.
Like I said, more worthless crypto. Niche applications are not in the least
useful. A niche application to send e-mail encrypted with a fixed key, is to
say the least brain-dead.
> Base-64 encoding is not absolutely required
> for transmission of CipherText files since the CXT file is already 7-bit
> ASCII.
You really should make more of an effort to understand what has been
written. Your statement was that you cannot send arbitrary files with
CipherText, I pointed out a way you can format arbitrary files in ASCII that
can be submitted to your algorithm.
As to the output of your algorithm already being 7-bit ASCII. That
immediately shows that you waste space in your output, yet another indicator
that your algorithm is to say the least brain-dead.
>
> The CipherText application encrypts the message and attachments on the
> fly, requiring no more additional manual processing than that already
> required in Outlook Express.
As do several other, better made, better thought out, not nearly as
brain-dead other applications. Let's see if I can get a usable list fairly
easily here, PGP, S/MIME (which happens to even ship with Outlook Express)
and GPG to name 3 actually quite good ones. Your lack of public key
architecture clearly makes your program yet again, to say the least
brain-dead.
>
> Implementing the ability to articulate your own key for encrypting
> contact information on the HDD is something that must be done with care.
No it's something that must be done, and it's something that you have
completely failed to do. Once again making your program to say the least
brain-dead.
BTW I'm down to copy-and-pasteing that last part now.
> I am considering giving the user the option to either set his/her own key
> or simply use the default that was set at installation.
Allowing the user to use the key that is set on installation is, come on,
you can say it with me, to say the least brain-dead.
> Its a detail that
> is better left for a time after the user has grown comfortable with other
> more important aspects of the application.
I always thought the most important aspect was security? I guess that would
make "CipherText" to say the least brain-dead.
> The problem with setting a
> personal key is that it must be stored on the HDD.
If you truly believe that, than you are to say the least brain-dead. Which
of course would make your program to say the least brain-dead.
> This is very awkward
> to just throw together.
That appears to be exactly what you have done. So by your own admission,
your program is to say the least brain-dead.
> People dislike being confronted with decisions about things they do not
> fully comprehend.
Which is exactly why you should not be attempting to write security programs
that are to say the least brain-dead.
> I view this as a very minor program feature at this time.
Then as I have said before, and as I will say again whenever you bring this
worthless crap back around, the program is to say the least brain-dead.
Joe
------------------------------
From: tE! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HELP WITH RSA ENCRYPTION/DECRYPTION INCLUDING GARNER CRT ALGORITHM
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:55:03 +0200
tom st denis sucks. who gives a **** about his crap comments anyway ?
------------------------------
From: tE! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top Secret Crypto
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:01:16 +0200
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 08:35:31 +0200, "awn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>TOP SECRET CRYPTO
>
>The Most Powerful Data Encryption Program in the World
>--- Snip ---
>
>Order Online: http://www.topsecretcrypto.com
>
>
>A. Nobel Denmark.
Oh danish boy..get real :-/
'The Most Powerful Data Encryption Program in the World' - Haha. In
Denmark probably...
How else can it be that your "most powerful" encryption program's
protection is so weak ? Several guys in cracking scene have already
keygened and released it: Example ?
Date: 03-23-2001 Top.Secret.Crypto.v1.07.Incl.Keygen-ORiON
Poor mates who even spend one cent for your crap :-(
------------------------------
From: Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Avoiding RSA padding altogether?
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:16:47 -0400
Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> Something I wondered while reading the descriptions of OAEP and PSS.
> Is there a simpler way to ensure that the input to RSA is unstructured
> and fairly pseudorandom, by moving away from thinking of it as
> "padding" altogether?
>
> For encryption, it seems like something akin to DHAES would be
> applicable to RSA: choose a random number R fairly between 0 and N-1
> (where N is the RSA modulus), encrypt R using RSA without padding and
> send that as a header, and use Hash(R) as a secret key to encrypt and
> MAC your message.
Umm, wouldn't you prefer to pick R between 2 and N-1?
--
The longer a man is wrong, the surer he is that he's right.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: survey
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:20:00 -0700
Joseph Ashwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:uZAttMS9AHA.269@cpmsnbbsa07...
> As the poster that Gwym replied to I do have some things to say on the
> subject. There are several possiblities for the type of enhancement that has
> been discussed. The 2 general categories are imbuement, and combinors.
>
> Tom briefly experimented with different combinors, but didn't continue to
> explore, he stopped with a purely linear equation. The theory is that you
> can replace the key schedule of some block ciphers with the output of a pRNG
> to create something that seems mildly like a combination block/stream
> cipher. I think there are very significant gains to be made in this
> direction.
>
> Imbuement is a rather unexplored area, although further research will show
> that it has been partially explored by some designers, and even in modes
> like OFB for block ciphers. The idea is to use some amount of the plaintext
> and/or ciphertext and/or an external source to continually add entropy to
> the pRNG system. One example of this would be to take RC4 and on each output
> swap the input byte being encryted, and the resulting encrypted byte. Other
> ideas have been feedback modes, for block ciphers. I believe that there is a
> large potential to build a pRNG that becomes less predictable given more
> input (assuming the input has some amount of entropy), obviously up to a
> certain point.
Oh, boy. This is going to sound very Trollish but did you look at the cipher I
proposed a few weeks back? It was a weird blocky - streamish Idea. It had
plaintext and ciphertext input into the internal state. I didn't get very many
comments on it. If you did skim it, Is there anything in there that might be
applicable to this discussion?
Paul
>
> These are the two basic concepts that come to mind for exploration of stream
> ciphers. of course with block ciphers there's always the ability to come up
> with a strategy or basic design (e.g. Wide Trail or Feistel).
>
> Since there has been an explicit statement that a particular community would
> be interested in such a thing I will begin work on one, because of the
> limited space available for a 802.11 I will probably avoid changing the
> combinor, but will add imbuement to the system. I have an idea I've been
> working on slowly for a while, I should be able to make a post on it by the
> end of the week.
> Joe
>
> "Mok-Kong Shen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Sam Yorko wrote:
> > >
> > > "Douglas A. Gwyn" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Joseph Ashwood wrote:
> > > > > ... Explore the boundaries, we know that the middle of the sandbox
> > > > > offers some good secure areas, but it's crowded, find something that
> can
> > > > > distinguish your designs from the designs of others. ...
> > > >
> > > > Joseph made some good points. One class of cryptosystem that has
> > > > not been thoroughly explored in the open literature is stream
> > > > ciphers that are *not* of the key-generator class. Some solid
> > > > theoretical results there would be publishable, and a good system
> > > > along those lines would have many uses. Not all communications
> > > > are block-oriented!
> > >
> > > I (and everybody in the WLAN 802.11 community) would be >very<
> > > interested in something like this. With the amazing number of attacks
> > > against RC4 being published, we would welcome a better solution for
> > > encryption of the data stream.
> >
> > The original poster, Mr. Gwyn, would certainly be the
> > authority to explain what he meant in the above quote.
> > Before he posts details of his ideas, I would suggest
> > that one way of improving a stream generation process
> > for encryption is to somehow employ feedback to influence
> > the state of the generator. For example, at certain
> > intervals a certain function of the current plaintext
> > and/or ciphertext symbol(s) could be employed to modify
> > the current state of the generator in some manner. I
> > admit that I am rather vague here and am not suggesting
> > any thing concrete that is applicable to a given
> > generator like RC4.
> >
> > M. K. Shen
> > ----------------------
> > http://home.t-online.de/home/mok-kong.shen
>
>
------------------------------
From: Zonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 00:24:52 GMT
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:33:20 GMT, in sci.crypt, Phil Carmody
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Zonn wrote:
>> >> being deaf, dumb, and blind. But it wasn't easy.
>
>> 3. Helen Keller could in no sense of the word be considered "dumb". (Refer to #2
>> above.)
>
>Your "in no sense of the word" perturbs me.
>Teach a man to fish etc...
By far the best response!
I stand corrected! ;^)
-Zonn (feeling a bit "mute" at the moment ;^)
=====
"That deaf, dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball." -- Pete Townshend
=====
>www.dict.org yields, amongst other things
>
><<<
>From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) :
>
>
> Dumb \Dumb\, a. [AS. dumb; akin to D. dom stupid, dumb, Sw.
> dumb, Goth. dumbs; cf. Gr. ? blind. See Deaf, and cf.
> Dummy.]
> 1. Destitute of the power of speech; unable; to utter
> articulate sounds; as, the dumb brutes.
>
> To unloose the very tongues even of dumb creatures.
> --Hooker.
>
> 2. Not willing to speak; mute; silent; not speaking; not
> accompanied by words; as, dumb show.
>
> This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him. --Shak.
>
> To pierce into the dumb past. -- J. C.
> Shairp.
>
> 3. Lacking brightness or clearness, as a color. [R.]
>
> Her stern was painted of a dumb white or dun color.
> --De Foe.
>>>>
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:39:02 +0200
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Note that Helen Keller learned to communicate despite
> being deaf, dumb, and blind. But it wasn't easy.
That deaf, dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pinball!
-- _pinball wizard_, the who
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:42:57 +0200
"Tom St Denis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
sAyV6.102547$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Question. If "dumb means mute" and dumb also has the meaning [perhaps
> unofficial] as stupid, why not just say "mute".?
no dumb is fine. you wouldn't use mute in this context.
what about lead? is it Pb or is it lead-ing somewhere?
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:44:35 +0200
"Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It's a matter of using the correct word.
yup
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:48:02 +0200
"Robert J. Kolker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In effect a synonymous homophone.
yup. you only need it as long as to keep them guessing. once
the attack is underway they pretty much know what's going on.
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 02:54:20 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert J. Kolker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which is no credit to the Japanese: they even had a captured Navajo.
neither is the blind faith the germans had in enigma.
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:04:37 +0200
"David A Molnar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
9g7bqh$9u2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ... then *why* would she *want* to listen to Alice
> and Bob? and if she *can*, doesn't that destroy the claimed
> "security-through-inaccessible-referent" ?
traffic analysis would be one reason.
then there's ideolects. this is a style of speach that is
shared between some group of people who share some common
experience. even though you understand all the words it
may be total gibberish to you. certain words may also
convey a multitude of meanings and/or information.
obviously it wouldn't generalise to encryption of arbitary
messages, but you could use it to convey, in the clear, short
messages that only the sender and the recipient will understand.
it's sort of a codebook system with some context thrown in.
come to think of it, without the context a speaker of the
ideolect may not understand the message. the codebook is
the shared experience(s) and it's unwritten.
------------------------------
From: Zonn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Substitution Humor!
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:08:36 GMT
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:57:14 -0400, in sci.crypt, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Substitution Humor!
>
>The European Commission has just announced an agreement
>whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather
>than German which was the other possibility. As part of the
>negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English
>spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5
>year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".
>
>In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will
>make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be
>dropped in favour of the"k". This should klear up konfusion and
>keyboards kan have 1 less letter.
>
>There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond
>year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This
>will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.
>
>In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
>ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes
>are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double
>letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling.
>Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the
>language is disgraseful, and they should go away.
>
>By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as
>replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze
>unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and
>similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of
>leters.
>
>After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no
>mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech
>ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen ve vil tak over ze
>world!
^^^^^
I dont vant to komplan, but shudnt zat be speld "vorld"?
-Zonn (sori I ment Zon)
------------------------------
From: "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:08:51 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Paul Pires" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Except, of course, for the fact that the code-talkers' system was nothing
> >> like what you describe.
> >
> > My description was not from any knowledge of the official system
> > It was the description of how it worked from an interview of a
> > code talker...History Channel :-(
>
> He was probably describing the system fairly according to his
> recollections, though it was vague enough that listeners would fill in
> the gaps inaccurately.
>
> There were a couple of errors in my reply, though. First, it was the
> Marines, not the Navy, that employed the code talkers. Second, the
> code was evolved with the help of the first team of code talkers...so
> ``We worked together to devise the code'' would be a truthful enough
> statement, but again it is misleading: it tends to bury the role of the
> military and its cryptologists in helping devise the code.
>
> See <http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-2.htm>.
I'll check it out. And, thanks for the kind correction.
Paul
>
> Len.
>
> --
> Frugal Tip #18:
> Get by on your good looks.
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:18:10 +0200
"Robert J. Kolker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Let me give you a homely example. You are on a bus, train or
> plane and there is a Japanese coupule sitting nearby having a
> conversation in Japanese. Assuming you are not a nihonophone,
> how could you possible decode the conversation by passive
> listening? Answer. You can't.
yes, japanese is sufficiently removed from, say, european
languages that you don't have much hope. if you speak a
latin based european language you could probably follow
snippets of french/italian/spanish.
even if you knew about the existance of katakana, most
of it would be lost on you because of the way foreign
words (mostly derived from english) are mangled into
katakana and then spoken.
eg. terebi = tv [from television]
------------------------------
From: "Boyd Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alice and Bob Speak MooJoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:28:03 +0200
"Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWII: US said cracking purple was considerably complicated by having
> to learn Japanese.
i'm not so sure. the kana limit you to 48 (iirc, it's been a while)
basic 'characters' from the set a, i, u, e, o* and then a chunk of
bigraphs. japanese is perfectly phonetic, which means you can apply
faily simple heuristics to see whether the decrypt is valid japanese.
but once you have the decrypt, reading it is another problem.
it is a hard language to learn.
iirc purple messages were send as romaji [kana written in the roman
alphabet].
* yes that is the order. not a, e, i, o, u.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Best, Strongest Algorithm (gone from any reasonable topic) - VERY
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 14 Jun 2001 21:29:40 -0400
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> System #1 is secure IN AN INFORMATION THEORETIC SENSE. System #2 may
>> may be secure, but it is NOT secure in an information-theoretic sense.
>
> That's because you 'define' the security that way.
No. I define ``information theoretic security'' that way. You wanted to
know what it means that ``PK systems have zero information-theoretic
security''. Now you know, because I've told you what ``information-
theoretic security'' means in this context.
If you want to discuss *other* notions of security, start a new
thread. Don't confuse yourself by using the word ``security'' as a
generic term encompassing every possible notion of security. (By the way,
``security'' is only meaningful w.r.t. a specific threat model. Why is
it news to you that there is no single definition of ``security''?)
And most of all, *don't* turn it into a religious discussion about whether
there is such a thing as ``certainty'' in the first place--which you seem
in imminent danger of doing.
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #20:
Take hostages.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Help with Comparison Of Complexity of Discrete Logs, Knapsack, and
Large Primes
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 14 Jun 2001 21:36:23 -0400
Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>> Mok-Kong Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> As I said, a logical model is wrong, if it is not consistent. The
>>> stuff did by the two authors is not wrong in the mathematical sense...
>>
>> But a book is wrong, if it fails to accomplish its goal. R&W wanted a
>> complete mathematical theory--but such a thing is provably impossible.
>
> Well, take an example. FLT has been finally proved. Before
> that many books on FLT, giving some interesting (correct)
> results, have been published, e.g. one by Ribenboim, though
> none of these contain a proof of FLT (excepting 'partial
> proofs'). Do you simply call all these books 'wrong'?
They were working on a problem which was solvable--or at least, not known
to be unsolvable. Of course they weren't ``wrong''.
On the other hand, if somebody decided to devote 500 pages to a theory
intended to culminate in a proof of the continuum hypothesis, then it's
fair to say that the entire project is wrong. Even if interesting and
publishable results are proven along the way.
>>> Every proof in the book must be correct (even though I haven't touch
>>> that book), since it apparently is a recognized literature.
>>
>> Are you tetched? Recognized literature is generally riddled with
>> errors. One should assume that R&W contains many errors...
>
> ...I meant that what the two authors had done could not be called wrong
> simply because they were unable to achieve the goal that they had set
> for themselves.
Don't you mean ``Because nobody, from now till hell freezes over, will
*ever* achieve the goal, because it is impossible?''
Their whole program was wrong. That doesn't make them idiots, bad
fathers, or rotten human beings. It just means that their whole
program was wrong. Get a grip.
Len.
--
Frugal Tip #65:
Get a cushy TMF job where you can get away with making goofy lists like
this one for a living.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to sci.crypt.
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
