pgf must have been a beast ! Looking forward to reading your paper and seeing your talk.
<tlaro...@kergis.com> writes: > 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 ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M6c39c87f18249252a861e2f2 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
