Hi, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > Once again: QUOTE THE ARTICLE!!!
Ouch my eyes. You shout. If the article puts one of its key statements into a diagram, then i cannot quote that directly as text, but only re-narrate it. > Then, QUOTE ME. > quote PRECISELY I did this in many lines. Without shouting and with due dilligence. You just don't like what i say. That's ok. But you should not pretend that it is wrong, instead. > you continue to completely unfairly place > a ridiculous burden upon your conversational compatriots You are obviously not a compatriot of mine in an intellectual way. Mathematics is a very egalitarian science: A valid proof by a novice student is worth as much as by the dean. Both have to stand dialectic criticism rather than to succeed by "Believe Me", "Because I Say So", or "All others believe it's true". You were so unfriendly to call me "naive". Well, in the context of math it is naive to give in to unproven statements which smell like "5 is an even number". I don't have to present any credentials before i am allowed to bring a counter example to a statement. > Learn the art of axiomatic written communication. If you are willing to accept that the number of molecules in the universe is only a big one if you count it with your fingers, then i am willing to learn what you mean with "axiomatic written communication". The incomplete and suppressed physicist in me cannot keep himself from saying the following. Zenaan Harkness wanted to give a really big number: > find the > number of molecules in the universe, and then work out roughly how > many bits (i.e. as a power of two number) are needed to store that, > and then compare this to the number of bits of entropy Ts'o talked > about. I need a box with two distinguishable halves and 384 different gas molecules to represent said bits by the coarse distinction which molecule is in which half. I am sure that i can compose 384 different molecules if i use isotopes and all my chemistry set. But if i fail, i take 149 numbered dices and use them as replacement. (384*log(2)/log(6)) 2 exp 384 is not a big number compared with a BD-RE medium which has at least 2 exp 200,000,000,000 valid content states. So my number is much bigger than yours and i still can hold it by two fingers. But this does not help me with doubting the information production by a deterministicly encrypted stream. For that we need a proof by contradiction: Let us assume we can squeeze 1024 bits of entropy from a deterministic cipher stream with 2 exp 384 distinguishable starting states. So the possible streams can be enumerated by the natural numbers below 2 exp 384. This establishes a lossless compression algorithm if we replace the streams by their enumeration numbers. But entropy is a lower limit for lossless compression. So any existing lossless compression is an upper limit of entropy. So we get: 384 >= 1024. This is obviously wrong (at least in my fork of math) and thus we have a contradiction derived from our assumption, which therefore must be wrong, too. > I'm not here to win That's trivial. We have no umpire and you can't knock me out physically. > > > Exactly which part of my sentence above, do you say contradicts what > > > you say just here? > > The part that /dev/urandom is equivalent to stemming from /dev/random. > That i absolutely not what I said. If you already noted my word "equivalent" then please explain why this is a misquote of your "treated as though" statement in https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-user@lists.debian.org/msg720104.html > ... > I should have wrote "/dev/random should be treated as though it is > ... > the input feed to /dev/urandom" (sorry about that). > you are wanting easy answers to difficult concepts, No. I am demanding that your fork of math can answer some simple objections. It's your plight to prove what you state, not mine. I am in the comfortable position to only have to throw in counter examples. If the counter examples are simple, then this characterizes your statements, not my mind. > You seem to be personally desiring the result of "some external > authority I can trust" Actually not. I want to see the proofs of your courageous statements. But you rather take offense from me not seeing you as authority. > You cannot rely upon what I say about crypography, so don't even > think about so relying! Didn't you just shout at me because you hate my disbelief about your statements ? Now you agree ? > I suggest the only safe approach is being suspicious of anyone > proclaiming authority, Are you sure you are alone in your head ? > You have crossed a line. > Do not do this again. ... or else ? I wrote: > > > > not a strongly obfuscated but still diluted result. Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > Yes, your naivety shines through. > > You tell me > > that if i read 1024 bytes from a not very secret stream that > > was encrypted with a secret 384 bit key i get 1024 bytes of entropy ? > You are now putting words in my mouth. I just derive an objection from your statement that more than 384 bits from a 384 bit key do not contain less entropy than from a longer key. (Actually i wanted to write "bits" instead of "bytes" in my original statement. But my objection stays valid with 1024 bytes too.) Now it is up to you - at least in math - to prove that the objection is wrong. I doubt you can, because above i provided a proof of its correctness. (The first proof in this whole thread, btw.) > I shall continue finish replying to this email, but you can expect > less responses from me foing forward. A single one with proper proofs would be enough. > More suggested homework > - magnitudes I think i already ridiculed the size of your numbers sufficiently. :)) > - the difference between theoretical and infeasible computational > security (protip seach term "information theoretic") Well, i said a few mails ago that now it is about math, not about what you or i believe that others can do. If you create a math where "nearly true" and "true" are considered equivalent, then you will soon end up being the Pope. (See Bertrand Russel's proof that he is Pope if 2+2=5.) > myself who apparently wish to > assist in your search for crypto understanding. You assist me ? Inhowfar ? By shouting and calling yourself smarter than me ? > Respectfully, Well, you are entitled to change your attitude as often as you want. My own wish is constant and goes out to the smart and the stupid alike: Have a nice day :) Thomas
