Importance of chaos theory
in [Cryptography]
|
Prev: Primitive tri/pentanomials
Next: solutions manual
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 31 Jul 2010 01:39 unruh wrote: > Your questions are silly. The best journal depends on far too much to be > able to give an blanket recommendation. The authors have not asked me > anyway, and I have no interest in reading their paper, nor the expertise to > make a suggestion. Tom has made some. I have repeated given my points: Crpyto is nowadays very big. In analogy to, say, physics, no physicsist practically read journals of all different branches of physics. So, if a paper he doesn't notice, it is normally not that the author has submitted to the wrong journal but that the reader hasn't time, energy, or for whatever other personal reason fails to glance into some journals that are beyond his very limited window of his own working. So in your sentence "if the physicist published it in a physics journal, he should not be surprized if molecular biologists do not notice it." the phrase "molecular biologists" could in practice be replaced by "physicists" as well, the reason being simply that the field of physics is too huge today. Two centuries ago a capable math professor had knowledge that very well in-depth covered the entire field, today the situation is totally different. So who is a "typical" reader in the field of crypto? If you don't read some journals, including some journals that are 'explicitly' crypto, it doesn't follow that the authors have submitted to the wrong journal. That's my main point. M. K. Shen
From: Tom St Denis on 31 Jul 2010 14:38 On Jul 31, 1:39 am, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote: > unruh wrote: > > Your questions are silly. The best journal depends on far too much to be > > able to give an blanket recommendation. The authors have not asked me > > anyway, and I have no interest in reading their paper, nor the expertise to > > make a suggestion. Tom has made some. > > I have repeated given my points: Crpyto is nowadays very big. In > analogy to, say, physics, no physicsist practically read journals of > all different branches of physics. So, if a paper he doesn't notice, > it is normally not that the author has submitted to the wrong journal > but that the reader hasn't time, energy, or for whatever other > personal reason fails to glance into some journals that are beyond > his very limited window of his own working. So in your sentence > "if the physicist published it in a physics journal, he should not be > surprized if molecular biologists do not notice it." the phrase > "molecular biologists" could in practice be replaced by "physicists" > as well, the reason being simply that the field of physics is too huge > today. Two centuries ago a capable math professor had knowledge that > very well in-depth covered the entire field, today the situation is > totally different. So who is a "typical" reader in the field of crypto? > If you don't read some journals, including some journals that are > 'explicitly' crypto, it doesn't follow that the authors have submitted > to the wrong journal. That's my main point. You need to stop drinking when you post. This made no sense at all. If I want to submit a paper talking about crypto I'll post to a crypto conference. If I want to read papers about crypto I'll read crypto journals. See how that works? Tom
From: james cross on 1 Aug 2010 05:15 I think we are at cross-purposes here. The point I take from M K Shen is that a new aspect of say maths will be published in a maths journal. Thus if it has relevance to Crypto, that relevance may be missed if Crypto workers only read Crypto journals. M K Shen, as I understand him, is asking for some kind of mechanism to inform people in other disciplines of advances that may be of use to them. If I have put words into your mouth MK, my apologies. I suspect the only practical 'mechanism' is to read everything you can get your hands on. After all as Edison commented "Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration".
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 1 Aug 2010 07:40 james cross wrote: [snip] > .......... some kind of mechanism to > inform people in other disciplines of advances that may be of use to > them. > > I suspect the only practical 'mechanism' is to read everything you can > get your hands on. After all as Edison commented "Genius is 99% > perspiration and 1% inspiration". The mathematicians have their 'Mathematical Reviews' to let people of diverse subfields (and even within one subfield, due to the volume of publications and publications in different languages) of mathematics to be better and timely informed of new research results. The Russians have a similar one of their own, if I don't err. Similar reviews exist in a number of other natural sciences as well as their subfields. While crypto is now fairly big (opinions may differ, I personally use to regard crypto as synonym to information security), I doubt, though, the establishing of something like 'Mathematical Reviews' would be currently realistic in view of inevitable organizational and financial problems. As you recommended, it's worth the effort to spend some little time to look around and not limit oneself to searching only in a very narrow direction. BTW, our discussion group is naturally pertinent for dissemination of news about novel research results either strictly crypto or of potential interest to the development of crypto. A concerted effort of all participants of the group would be desirable. M. K. Shen
From: Ivan Voras on 7 Aug 2010 10:48
On 30.7.2010 17:53, unruh wrote: > On 2010-07-30, Tom St Denis <tm(a)iahu.ca> wrote: >> I don't know if that's considered "chaotic." In my mind a chaotic >> function is one which behaves highly non-linear even with respect to a >> great many sample points. Like I can know the temperature for the >> last 100 days but I still can't plot out to tomorrow let alone next >> week, let alone next month. > > Sure you can. The temp may well be chaotic, but that does not stop one > being able to talk about climate. The earth's orbit is chaotic, but that > does not stop us from being able to predict the earth's position next > year (or even 1000 years) with amazing accuracy I'm not nearly an expert but that is, as far as I understand it, at the heart of it. A chaotic system implies both non-periodicity in the strict sense - you don't *ever* get exact repeat of a long enough sequence - and an "attractor", mostly meaning that, as a pattern-seeking minds, we clearly see some type of patterns in the data set. It's exactly what happens with multi-body physics: we "see" planetary orbits and can approximate planets' positions in the future but we can never calculate 100% exact (down do individual atoms) positions. I think that this difference between what is approximated and what is "exact" could be a good source of true randomness but probably not easy, as the "attractor" part of the whole thing means there can be false periodicity if measured with insufficient precision (for the planetary example: if we allow loss of precision we can arrive at completely predictable orbits, useless for randomness, but on the other hand, unfortunately, we cannot measure planetary positions to within atom-sized levels of precision and use that for a source of randomness). |