On Wednesday, January 1, 2003, at 08:55 PM, Michael Cardenas wrote:
You know not whereof you speak.On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 12:23:51PM -0800, Tim May wrote:On Tuesday, December 31, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Michael Cardenas wrote:Strong crypto is, ipso facto, resistant to all of the above. For theHow do you all see the future use of biologically based systems affecting cryptography in general? By biologically based systems I mean machine learning, genetic algorithms, chips that learn (like Carver Mead's work), neural networks, vecor support machines, associative memory, etc.
obvious reason that the specific solution to a cipher is like a Dirac
delta function (a spike) rising above a featureless plain, this in
terms of the usual hill-climbing or landscape-learning models which all
of the above use in one form or another.
People do break cyphers, by finding weaknesses in them. Are you saying that you think that current cyphers are unbreakable?
Breaking RSA or similar systems is very, very, very strongly believed to be related to, for example, factoring large numbers. Hill-climbing and landscape-learning algorithms are of no use.
I said this in my last message.
Rather that you reading up on how such ciphers work so as to see immediately the content of what I said, you resort to the "Are you saying that you think that current cyphers are unbreakable?" chestnut.
Yes, if by breakable we are excluding brute force factoring, mathematical breakthroughs that are "deep" (and unexpected) and which have nothing to do with dumb hill-climbing, or some application of Shor's algorithm with quantum computers.
Give it up. Neural nets, simulated annealing, support vector machines, etc. are not going to factor a 1000-digit number.
I talked about this as well. You need to learn about what strong ciphers are.Also, what about using biological systems to create strong cyphers, not to break them?
What if magic wands exist? What if time machines send the decrypted message backward in time?It seems that all of these analyses assume that an instruction is a single mathematical operation in a turing machine. What if each operation was something else? I refuse to believe that the human mind is just a turing machine.
--Tim May
