Softy <[1]softservant@gmail.com> wrote:

   was that eight pages of fun reading rambling just to end with ...
   "because crypto is in too many mathematical dimensions to model in
   origami, or any other Earthly physical medium" ... or did I miss a
   crucial middle paragraph?

   // i forgot the disclaimer again, that my role here is that of the
   fool...
    i do not understand how the crypto algorithms such as AES actually
   encrypt information- to what degree 'too many mathematical dimensions
   to model' indicates that there is some elaborate movement of data in
   intricate ways inside some computational matrix, perhaps like a menger
   sponge, though involving multiple approaches to placing data within
   some structure that is established and created, managed and then stores
   and accesses the data again via decryption
   a visualization of various crypto approaches to the degree they exist
   as a series of computational moves, for encrypting and decrypting data,
   would be helpful to understand beyond 2D linear graphs and data sets
   for instance, is everything occurring in a 2D data space or 3D, of
   x,y,z coordinates such as the sponge above, and would multiple
   algorithms be involved in establishing an occupiable realm for the
   data, or is it all put into one equation
   what the SRF (strange read/reply function) introduces is the
   possibility that such non-computational approaches such as origami, may
   not be available or accessible if solely generating encryption
   approaches based on mathematical structures themselves, such that a
   rationalization for intricate folding may have no inherent purpose or
   may appear arbitrary unless it was a strategic decision... it would
   seem unlikely to be developed into crypto equations within a math-only
   framework in that it would need to be rationalized without
   understanding its value- like doing something for no reason
   in other words how could origami crypto 'evolve' out of a mathematical
   approach that is contained with a computer firstly, and friction-free
   in terms of the mathematics that could be applied within that domain,
   primarily
   and so taking the assumption further, the fractal menger sponge in an
   origami approach, it could potentially be folded dozens of times in
   various ways and effect various scales and structural connections, as a
   way of coordinating data placement via algorithms, seemingly
   yet the limit would seem to be perspective of the situation, because
   origami could be N-dimensional, folded into non-existent space and
   doing this across a class of nested multidimensional objects, including
   potentially a form of computation or calculation based on overlapping
   structures, symbols, whatnot, as a way of reading or deciphering or
   aligning data events
   here is what i do not get: why focus entirely upon known mathematical
   constructs from within a mathematical boundary that are standardized
   into a cryptographic approach. is this not somewhat like doing the
   expected, in terms of 'how things work'.
   whereas if modeling and questioning crypto ideas outside the limits of
   the computer as medium (determiner of approach and its rationalization
   even), what if approaches exist which have no known mathematical
   category they operate within and thus remain a mystery, and there are
   dozens or thousands of such approaches like each become equivalent to
   crypto characters and character sets, that like an alphabet can be
   arranged infinitely into different "equations", so you could use
   [ciphers] & [origami] & [bit sets] & [fractals] & [n-dimensions] &
   [symbols] & [mathesis] together, each having potentially thousands of
   unique approaches, and that together this establishes an "encryption
   algorithm", perhaps one-time or changes with hashes
   and thus 3,020 folds, 20 character bit set, double-inverted mirrored
   fractals, one-time symbol array data placement, and key-accessible
   decryption via mathesis. what if such /computation/ is not even modeled
   within a computer to /analyse/ such a situation and instead it begins
   outside-the-lines by default, in the realm of infinitely possible
   structuring rather than knowing elliptical curves are used,
   therefore...
   i tend to think that the data space for crypto algorithms is rigidly
   defined within known mathematical constructs by default of standardized
   approaches. yet what about equations that do not exist or map to any
   known preexisting order, potentially
   it is the larger trouble with signs and variables, which the post you
   refer to inadequately attempted to address, in that the image of a
   thing becomes confused with what it references, in terms of language
   (and mathematical variables). subjective A=B situations whereby a
   variable {x} no longer refers to another event (over here...) and
   instead 'the image of the sign' replaces it, via substitution, in
   certain ungrounded conditions when truth is mediated in the signs and
   not beyond them
   what this suggests is that the crypto algorithms inside the electronic
   box or computer may be deterministic, a rationalization whereby the
   equations themselves function as if the larger truth instead of
   referencing something beyond the variables used, which can be assumed
   'true' by default of their being used (the sign or image of their use,
   equals the thing referenced which is then detached from the
   evaluation). in other words the [sign] of crypto stands in for [crypto]
   itself, as if the same thing, and then the [sign] begins to determine
   the parameters for its development, and not a larger truth, which
   instead is limited by this narrowing and bounded interpretation-- such
   that origami may only be considered from an applied mathematical
   framework within an already existing encryption approach, versus
   independent and prior to this, outside of it, with vastly more to offer
   than a limited placement in a linear equationspace, if conceived or
   limited that way, as if only about compression, say, and not data
   nesting in n-dimensional arrays as if interdimensional conduit that
   could provide egress, circulation for code, and doorways and portals
   for keys and zoned relations
   and yet there could be tens of thousands of such innovations, if
   considered outside the computer framework-- it is an issue of
   imagination and probabilities and then, like making an ancient necklace
   out of stone beads, lining up a sequence or a matrix that becomes the
   basis for computation, perhaps some of it blackbox, some of it not, yet
   [infinity] x [infinity] ... [k] by default.
   it sounds like there is no way that n-dimensional origami crypto is
   going to naturally develop within an RSA or AES context just given the
   way these are discussed, the parameters, unless there are internal
   mysteries that involve such dimensions that go undocumented and so
   perhaps it is just not understanding the technical language that keeps
   a barrier between such lay observation and understanding of what is
   actually going on- as the cryptography
   being the fool, i admit i have not done my homework as conceptually it
   is unclear to me upon multiple attempts and views, that it is so
   technically laden an approach, or what is evaluated is so constrained
   to certain parameters, that it appears to perhaps involve a single
   equation that handles multiple functions, as if a Google Search
   algorithm, versus say dozens of algorithms chained together that may do
   more as described in the alternate version proposed above
   yet sharing that model does not necessarily compromise anything because
   it is variable, whereas it is unknown if sharing the inner workings of
   various standards would make them less secure, to evaluate the
   algorithms, which seems again a bounded process of 'review' over years,
   where inputs and outputs are correlated in terms of crackable
   structures-- yet what creates these numbers and schemes appears
   off-limits itself, behind a shroud of not mistaken, as part of the
   technical approach, and so apparently mystery is built-into the
   process, if not "unknowing" or trust and faith the standard, which to
   me is bizarre
   this because mathematics can be subjective, the variables as
   computational entities (x->x') can themselves be manipulated as signs,
   such that an ungrounded variable (x) can in its inaccuracy actually be
   another variable (y) and thus if this is not checked and error
   corrected, can lead elsewhere (y->y'), such that the sign of x leads to
   y'. because [x] becomes iconic, an image assumed true by its existing
   as a variable, not auditing the data model to whatever it being input
   or related to as x.
   this is why a discipline like economics is so backwards, taking
   concepts like [work] and [income] and [profit] and [society] and making
   them fuzzy, attaching numbers to them, and making computations as if
   A=A objecting, when instead subverted and moving this from A=>B', via
   the illusion that [B] is actually [A], due to its relation as an
   identified pattern match, (yet pT.)
   aesthetics are a huge part of mathematics and 'natural number' in
   nature, especially as it relates to geometry and symbolism. to omit
   this knowledge within crypto is to have a too narrow or bounded
   interpretation that determines false-limits and bases computation upon
   already-existing knowable structures, perhaps as if the very purpose if
   for binary network supercomputers to automatically break the codes. at
   least it would explain the existing approach in terms of who it
   actually benefits most.
   correction on post referenced: did not realize Olek and knitting crew
   create panels of works or sections prior to visiting sites, which is
   the only sane explanation for how large scale works are possible, so
   parallels installation of Christo et Jeanne-Claude; also, artwork
   Running Fence was mistakenly mentioned as inside/outside boundary,
   versus here/there or others
   Emergen-C, Açaí-Berry, Super Orange

References

   1. mailto:softservant@gmail.com