On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Robert J. Hansen <r...@sixdemonbag.org> wrote: > > 99.6%; a little different. The binomial theorem gives us the correct numbers. > > 0 failures: 31.6% > 1 failure: 42.2% > 2 failures: 21.1% > 3 failures: 4.7% > 4 failures: 0.4%
Alrighty... :-) . So the combined probability that there would be >= 1 failures would be 68.4% . > Anyway. [...] someone at the keysigning party will say, "hey, that's weird!" > and show it to everyone else at the keysigning party. Umm.. if I understand the nature of the probability tests or calculations just mentioned above, the results have to be accepted as they are. They either got it wrong or right. Those individuals who got it wrong might have actually had that thought, "hey, that's weird", but eventually they did go ahead and make that wrong decision. I'm just recollecting some probability concepts and hypothesis testing concepts I learned a long time ago. And besides, even if the above weren't true, how do I know that someone who does have that thought will make sure to check with others at the keysigning party? > ...assuming there's not some deep systemic reason for the failure (i.e., all > trials are independent), you still have nothing to worry about.... I guess depending on one's security policy or requirements that's a pretty weighty assumption to make. Also, there's a difference between deciding a stranger's identity solely based on a passport/national ID versus checking his/her ID _and_ getting to know them a little better. And that decision lies in the hands of the user. It's a more social issue I guess. Anyhow, I've learned so much from this great discussion over the past few days. Let me thank all who've cared to enlighten a new user such as me about these things. This is definitely a great community! :-) _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
