Prev: Merry Christmas 10
Next: test
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 28 Nov 2009 04:29
Spinner wrote:
> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
>> Greg Rose wrote:

>>> Mok-Kong is talking to himself again. This is a
>>> good sign, soon he will get bored with the
>>> conversation.
>>
>> Nice to know that you "did" respond to my post.
>
> Not true. Nobody is responding. You are making all of this up, and so
> are we. Personally, I'm planning to wake up soon and the movie will be
> over and i'll pick up my popcorn and coke and go home.

If a post follows-up another, then "somebody" must have pushed
the answer button of his newsreader. For me this point is barely of
importance. What I like, however, to stress is that one should strive
to maintain a good atmosphere in discussions. In a newsgroup, there
are experts as well as laypeople, highly literate natives as well
as foreigners not having fully mastered the English language. Using
a phrase from a certain proverb collection, I plead that everyone
should use soft words and hard arguments in scientific discussions,
i.e. avoiding in particular personal attacks, which could lead to
nothing but unnecessary waste of bandwidth. See my thread "Hoping
for a good discussion atmosphere in this group" of 23.09.2009.

M. K. Shen

From: WTShaw on 2 Dec 2009 21:28
On Nov 28, 3:29 am, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
> Spinner wrote:
> > Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> >> Greg Rose wrote:
> >>> Mok-Kong is talking to himself again. This is a
> >>> good sign, soon he will get bored with the
> >>> conversation.
>
> >> Nice to know that you "did" respond to my post.
>
> > Not true. Nobody is responding. You are making all of this up, and so
> > are we. Personally, I'm planning to wake up soon and the movie will be
> > over and i'll pick up my popcorn and coke and go home.
>
> If a post follows-up another, then "somebody" must have pushed
> the answer button of his newsreader. For me this point is barely of
> importance. What I like, however, to stress is that one should strive
> to maintain a good atmosphere in discussions. In a newsgroup, there
> are experts as well as laypeople, highly literate natives as well
> as foreigners not having fully mastered the English language. Using
> a phrase from a certain proverb collection, I plead that everyone
> should use soft words and hard arguments in scientific discussions,
> i.e. avoiding in particular personal attacks, which could lead to
> nothing but unnecessary waste of bandwidth. See my thread "Hoping
> for a good discussion atmosphere in this group" of 23.09.2009.
>
> M. K. Shen

Good manners in good discussions are desirable but the most scientific
of posts are often treated with prejudice from the uninspired.
Cryptography is beyond single authorities as much as surgery is beyond
1850 techniques, some of which may even still be good. I am ready to
return to good discussions but also ready to beg for good evidence to
back up shallow claims of capability without demonstrating it. In a
scientific mode of consideration, bad ideas need to be fought but only
with good evidence against them and not just waves of hands with
selected fingers made prominent. All here should be open to knowing
more and not merely finding a set in the a-men section.
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 3 Dec 2009 06:34
WTShaw wrote:

> Good manners in good discussions are desirable but the most scientific
> of posts are often treated with prejudice from the uninspired.
> Cryptography is beyond single authorities as much as surgery is beyond
> 1850 techniques, some of which may even still be good. I am ready to
> return to good discussions but also ready to beg for good evidence to
> back up shallow claims of capability without demonstrating it. In a
> scientific mode of consideration, bad ideas need to be fought but only
> with good evidence against them and not just waves of hands with
> selected fingers made prominent. All here should be open to knowing
> more and not merely finding a set in the a-men section.

I am not sure of having fully understood you. But perhaps I could
say that the main point of mine in this thread is that in my view
some of the methodogies in classical crypto presumably could still
be profitably used (in forms adapted to modern computers), if these
are employed with (intended) more computing effort/costs, e.g.
multiple encryptions with different methods, to compensate for their
otherwise (in the original form) weakness in the computer age. BTW,
that the classical crypto even in the original form may not be very
easy to break may be seen in the case of the Chaocipher (see a
recent thread of moscherubin). Discussions on the individual
classical ciphers should perhaps be better done in their own threads,
I suppose.

Thanks,

M. K. Shen
From: WTShaw on 6 Dec 2009 02:37
On Dec 3, 5:34 am, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.s...(a)t-online.de> wrote:
> WTShaw wrote:
> > Good manners in good discussions are desirable but the most scientific
> > of posts are often treated with prejudice from the uninspired.
> > Cryptography is beyond single authorities as much as surgery is beyond
> > 1850 techniques, some of which may even still be good.  I am ready to
> > return to good discussions but also ready to beg for good evidence to
> > back up shallow claims of capability without demonstrating it.  In a
> > scientific mode of consideration, bad ideas need to be fought but only
> > with good evidence against them and not just waves of hands with
> > selected fingers made prominent. All here should be open to knowing
> > more and not merely finding a set in the a-men section.
>
> I am not sure of having fully understood you. But perhaps I could
> say that the main point of mine in this thread is that in my view
> some of the methodogies in classical crypto presumably could still
> be profitably used (in forms adapted to modern computers), if these
> are employed with (intended) more computing effort/costs, e.g.
> multiple encryptions with different methods, to compensate for their
> otherwise (in the original form) weakness in the computer age. BTW,
> that the classical crypto even in the original form may not be very
> easy to break may be seen in the case of the Chaocipher (see a
> recent thread of moscherubin). Discussions on the individual
> classical ciphers should perhaps be better done in their own threads,
> I suppose.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M. K. Shen

One important fact is that given different ciphers, the amount of
ciphertext needed to solve a message varies. If only a few characters
are used, perhaps nothing conclusive can be solved. A good question
regards the level of possible, ambiguity with one threshold for
getting anything meaningful and another for being conclusive. This
refers to one concise algorithm systems.

Since the levels vary with algorithms, there would be a consideration
in finding multiple algorithms that did not lessen the strength of any
component level.
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 10 Dec 2009 10:28
WTShaw wrote:

> One important fact is that given different ciphers, the amount of
> ciphertext needed to solve a message varies. If only a few characters
> are used, perhaps nothing conclusive can be solved. A good question
> regards the level of possible, ambiguity with one threshold for
> getting anything meaningful and another for being conclusive. This
> refers to one concise algorithm systems.
>
> Since the levels vary with algorithms, there would be a consideration
> in finding multiple algorithms that did not lessen the strength of any
> component level.

If I don't err, a cascade of two encryption systems of different
nature wouldn't weaken any of them, e.g. cascading transposition and
substitution in classical crypto.

M. K. Shen
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Merry Christmas 10
Next: test