On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:56:47AM -0800, Ron Minnich wrote: > the kertex paper sounds very interesting. I would still like to have > pictex for it :-)
I will add it. Having added beamer with its dependencies (pgf and the like), pictex shouldn't be very difficult... > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:30?AM <tlaro...@kergis.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Maslowski via 9fans wrote: > > > I'd say, submit a paper and elaborate on this. > > > > > > There are many approaches to cryptography besides primitives that count on > > > problems hard to calculcate, such a steganograpby (hiding messages in > > > images) and other forms of covert channels; > > > https://github.com/mindcrypt/covertchannels-steganography > > > > > > Mind that analog computing is a thing: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer > > > > > > And so is biological computing: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing > > > > > > You will find existing approaches of both applied to cryptography. > > > > > > > Well, I will very more probably propose a paper for WIP: > > > > "kerTeX: from typographical system to typography of the system" > > > > (how all the pieces exist to replace *roff---I don't mean the macro > > for man page, but using the TeX engine instead of the roff one---and > > to have a complete system from fonts, to layout and rendering because > > one can even replace a PostScript interpreter because METAFONT is a > > RIP...) > > > > I'm interested in all the (previous last paragraph) things, around > > computability, numerical vs analogical and so on, but I have not > > something suffisantly original or even educated to say on the field. > > I will prefer listening others. > > > > But for the ones interested in cryptography, I came across an > > historical remark that made me laugh and I can't resist sharing: > > > > In letters written by Louvois (war minister, so to speak, under > > Louis XIV), he once advised the commanding general to instruct the > > generals under his own command to code and crypt their mails. And > > he added, that it was not because he feared the enemy could surprise > > our war plans if they managed to get the mails, but because he > > didn't want the enemy to discover how subpar our generals were... > > > > I like history. You discover that some things remain constant over the > > time... > > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 22:00 , <tlaro...@kergis.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop > > > > on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that: > > > > > > > > "This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about > > > > cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security > > > > applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability, > > > > etc. are particularly welcome." > > > > > > > > I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...). > > > > > > > > When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also > > > > about computability. > > > > > > > > "Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by > > > > generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There > > > > are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap > > > > bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb) > > > > minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate. > > > > > > > > So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation > > > > about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the > > > > following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists), > > > > I would be very interested: > > > > > > > > "Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer > > > > intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But > > > > how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if > > > > one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically > > > > solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?" > > > > > > > > More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical, > > > > digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open > > > > to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment: > > > > "analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus. > > > > > > > > PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the > > > > bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still > > > > alive ;-) > > > > -- > > > > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com> > > > > http://www.kergis.com/ > > > > http://kertex.kergis.com/ > > > > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C > > > > -- > > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com> > > http://www.kergis.com/ > > http://kertex.kergis.com/ > > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C -- Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com> http://www.kergis.com/ http://kertex.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M82135fade3f8dffe2b74734f Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
