December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Take it to sci.math
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:01 AM 1/20/1997, WinSock Remailer wrote: >Will all those people who are talking about set theory and >the countability of various number systems take their discussion >to sci.math, please? 'Cuz What a joke! Of all the messages to whine about this guy picks the math thread. Somehow that wouldn't have been my first choice. >1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. No, but it's interesting to many readers of this list and it builds community. >2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those > threads is even remotely correct. >3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math > >and > >4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real > training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. I don't get this at all. You have particular knowledge in the field, but instead of sharing the information with the rest of us, you find our (apparently) pathetic attempts to gain understanding to be "extremely annoying" and imply we need to be chewed out. Commander Zero

1 0

Re: Numbers we cannot talk about
by Paul Elliott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Some of the applications of these theories are very relevant. For > example, a theorem that proves that it is impossible to write a program > that would determine if any other program would stop or loop forever, is > very relevant and interesting. > > - Igor. Well, yes, but a scientist can only make a finite number of measurements. A computer used for crypto can only have a finite number of states. All this talk about transfinite numbers does not have any effect on arithemetic truths. What good is an axiom system which asserts (internally) that there are uncountably many reals if that same axiom system has a countable model? - -- Paul Elliott Telephone: 1-713-781-4543 Paul.Elliott(a)hrnowl.lonestar.org Address: 3987 South Gessner #224 Houston Texas 77063 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: cp850 iQCVAgUBMuMw8vBUQYbUhJh5AQFJYgP/a05CTNOG7zYJxcLBFU6JdzNItGUik7pi fbor6p9l6FDgCwSSRIB59ApRIwKFscGLHVT/mAIi5Ofbnbn/wsm9p35ZNlY0YeDd nPf171quOh7d91W6FXOUwhKSfehbAACbsapN5yaf2vtldpTb/LpdA+xvKTFgiRvg 4/8+yhyfp34= =npw2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Too much week at the end of your paycheck?
by remove＠structuremg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you need to supplement your income? Are you paying out in bills more than you make? Have you thought about a second job but wondered when you would have time? What if you could supplement your income in only 5-6 hours a week and if you could do it in the privacy of your own home at your computer? Would you try it? Find out how you can supplement and eventually replace your current job. We are looking for 6 new people willing to take a new opportunity and make it their goldmine. If you are open-minded, have internet access at home, and are ready to change your life don't pass on this opportunity. Help us change families financial futures for the better. Get more info from our autoresponder - info(a)structuremg.com or from our website - http://www.structuremg.com (signup here too!) ************************************************************** If you wish to be removed from our future mailings simply reply with "REMOVE" in the subject and place your email address in the body. You must do this correctly to be removed. **************************************************************

1 0

RE: THIS IS THE FIRST MESSAGE TO THE MODERATED CYPHERPUNKS LIST
by Butler, Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > >>Welcome to (what I hope is) a more useful and less confrontative >>cypherpunks list. Now, can we get back to talking about cryptography? > > "can we get 'BACK' to talking about cryptography?" You seem to have misspelled START. >Scott

1 0

FW: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE.
by Butler, Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have set up an autoresponder to bounce back all of this jerks responses. Like a game of e-mail tennis ! I'm sure that he will get sick before I do ! Scott >---------- >From: Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com[SMTP:Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com] >Sent: 17 January 1997 18:38 >To: Butler, Scott >Subject: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE. > > > > From : "Gerardo NUNO"@[PRCL/01] Please check the name and e-mail address of the person that you're looking. Since gerardo_nuno is out of the system temporary. attn. System Administration.

1 0

test message
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is sent to cypherpunks-outgoing-ksiuw. Will it make it to the cypherpunks list?

1 0

Re: One time pads and randomness?
by Rick Osborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>[Blurb on OTPs ...] I realize this has a limited amount of >messages before it is used up. But would this be secure? >Any suggestions, complaints, big gapping holes I missed? TMK, this is as close to a perfectly secure system as can be achieved. *AS LONG AS* the disks/discs are never compromised and never reused. As an interesting sidenote, if you read Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" this is the type of system the CIA wants to implement even though the NSA doesn't want to back them because they think their (compromised) sytem is secure. Don't we all wish... _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "I thought your patience was infinte?" 'Since space and time are curved, the infinite sooner or later bends back upon itself and ends up where it began and so have I.'

1 0

Re: Dr Vulis's crypto experiment (Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT)
by Casey Iverson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri is a low life piece of Russan shit who is trying to distroy this list because he has serious mental problems or he is a tool of the NSA. What part of his vicious personal and anomyous attacks against members of the list 'are not being read correctly'? What part of his calling everyone on this list that won't put up with his deliberate abuse, "fagots", 'are not being read correctly'? If you don't get it, you are a *really dumb fuck* or a KTOM tool. At 09:42 PM 1/16/97 GMT, you wrote: > >It's occured to me recently that Dimitri's posts are not being read >correctly, it is not the content which is the point, nor the >superficial lack of crypto relevance. > >Dimitri is an intelligent guy, and has a high level of crypto >expertise (he has a PhD on a cryptography topic). It is my belief >that his posts can only be understood in a "meta" sense -- he is >engaged in a highly complex cryptographic experiment. People who read >and respond to his individual posts are the unwitting subjects in his >experiments. His posts and the responses to them are actually the >data-set for a thorough cryptanalysis of mailing list threats. His >current topic under investigation is Denial of Service (DoS) attacks >on mailing lists. > >Denial of service on mailing lists is a complex business, and requires >expert human input to be done properly. > >Dimitri has systematically explored these types of posting behaviour: > >1. Posting only crypto relevant material. >2. Interspersing crypto relevant posts with hand personalised flame bait. >3. Interspersing crypto relevant posts with bot generated flame bait. >4. Interspersing crypto relevant posts with news stories. >5. Posting only non crypto relevant material. > >The alert reader will recall these phases of posting style (currently >we are in sub experiment 5, the other phases have occured over a >protracted period of intensive experimentation, and some newer readers >may have missed earlier phases). > >There were other experiments which may or may not have been part of >Dimitri's series of DoS experiments: > >6. Subscribing the list to itself (testing list resilience to recursion) > >7. Forging posts to carefully selected newsgroups with >"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" as the sender (this indirectly adds user >"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" to many direct marketing lists as direct >marketers make use of email addresses scanned from newsgroups). > >8. The "UNSCRIVE" and other spelling variations of "unsubscribe" epidemic, >and ensuing instructions and discussion > >9. Subscribing the list to other lists > >10. Bot generated flame bait posted anonymously (with ascii art) > >>From the post I am following up to the reader will observe an oblique >reference to the transition from phase 4 of the experiments to the >current phase, phase 5 (the reader will also note references to experimental >results c and d described below): > >Dimitri Vulis <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> writes: >> One memorable "censorship" incident occurred when the lying cocksucker >> John Gilmore (spit) forcibly unsubscribed me from this list because he >> didn't like the contents of my submissions - or did you forget already? >> Look up Declan's disgraceful writeup on Netly News archives. >> >> At that time most valuable contributors to this list (such as myself) >> resolved not to contribute crypto-relevant content to a censored forum. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >More widely read cypherpunks will know that Dimitri has performed >similar experiments in other fora -- his systematic experiments in >numerous USENET newsgroups resulted in the his receiving the >prestigious KOTM ("Kook Of The Month") award. > >His main experimental results to date with the cypherpunks mailing >list series of experiments have been: > >a) many cypherpunks publically announcing kill filing him > >b) numerous cypherpunks suggesting censoring him (a particularly >interesting result considering the libertarian leanings of many on >this list) > >c) the outstanding experimental result of being forcibly unsubscribed >from the list, and of being barred from resubscribing by John Gilmore. >(creator of alt.* USENET newsgroup hierarchy, and well know freespeech >advocate) > >d) another interesting, incidental experimental result was provided by >Declan McCullagh in his Netly News piece in prematurely, and entirely >unwittingly, publishing some of Dimitri's expermiental data-set. > >e) the main experimental result: the list shortly moving to a >moderated form, seemingly at the request of Sandy Sandfort, with >agreement from John Gilmore. > >These experimental results are quite significant, when taken in the >context of the anti-censorship, libertarian, pro-freespeech >environment of the cypherpunks mailing list. Dimitri should be >congratulated on his outstanding work. > >I await with interest the last phases of Dimitri's experiment, when >the cypherpunks list becomes a moderated forum. My suggestions for >interesting experiments during the moderated phase are: > >1. Testing the limits of Dale Thorn's anti-censorship sentiments (for >those who don't read Dale, he is subscribed to "cypherpunks-unedited" >in preparation for the moderation). > >2. Testing Sandy Sandforts rejection criteria. > >3. Testing Sandy Sandforts rejection rate for long crypto relevant >posts interspersed with irrelevant flame bait. > >4. Testing Sandy Sandforts rejection rate for posts with flame bait .sigs > >I hope Dimitri's selfless efforts in furthering understanding of DoS >attacks on mailing lists is properly acknowledged when he publishes >his findings on completion of his experiments. I also hope that >Dimitri will document his recommendations for mailing list >configuration and management in light of his experiments. > >Adam >-- >print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> >)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc` > >

2 1

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{"extropia"} = "<remail(a)miron.vip.best.com> cpunk pgp special"; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{'alpha'} = '<alias(a)alpha.c2.org> alpha pgp'; $remailer{'nymrod'} = '<nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"lead"} = "<mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"exon"} = "<remailer(a)remailer.nl.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"haystack"} = "<haystack(a)holy.cow.net> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"lucifer"} = "<lucifer(a)dhp.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"balls"} = "<remailer(a)huge.cajones.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"middle"} = "<middleman(a)jpunix.com> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"dustbin"} = "<dustman(a)athensnet.com> cpunk pgp hash latent cut ek mix reord middle ?"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"death"} = "<x(a)deathsdoor.com> cpunk pgp hash latent post"; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix) (weasel squirrel) The alpha and nymrod nymservers are down due to abuse. However, you can use the nym or weasel (newnym style) nymservers. The cyber nymserver is quite reliable for outgoing mail (which is what's measured here), but is exhibiting serious reliability problems for incoming mail. The squirrel and winsock remailers accept PGP encrypted mail only. 403 Permission denied errors have been caused by a flaky disk on the Berkeley WWW server. This seems to be fixed now. The penet remailer is closed. Last update: Mon 20 Jan 97 6:47:59 PST remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config(a)nym.alias.net +#+-*******# 4:38 99.99% weasel config(a)weasel.owl.de +++++-+++++ 1:34:36 99.95% lucifer lucifer(a)dhp.com +++++-++++++ 36:32 99.94% balls remailer(a)huge.cajones.com *+ ********* 3:01 99.94% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net * +*++++*+** 35:08 99.88% exon remailer(a)remailer.nl.com * ++##*###*# 1:14 99.86% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net ----------- 2:02:21 99.86% dustbin dustman(a)athensnet.com -++--+.--+- 3:01:52 99.74% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de ++ + ++ +++ 1:35:05 99.41% lead mix(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu +++++-++*+*+ 39:30 99.35% extropia remail(a)miron.vip.best.com ----------- 5:06:43 98.93% haystack haystack(a)holy.cow.net +* .-####+# 2:24:43 98.64% replay remailer(a)replay.com +*+******* 15:38 98.25% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net + + -+-- 1:51:15 92.61% middle middleman(a)jpunix.com ++ -+ .-- 1:48:09 67.78% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com .-++-+. 4:35:20 50.49% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: Dedikend Cut's and such (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > > Did a little research, Dedekind Cut's and such use Integers to define a > > SPECIFIC Real to a arbitrary BUT FIXED resolution. They do not define the > > set of Reals. > > They do. The set of all numbers representable by a DC is precisely > the set of reals. Then you are saying that using Dedekind Cut's it is possible to define the ENTIRE set of Reals? I am assuming that entire includes all those Reals which aren't representable by any algorithm and of which we can't even speak (even though we are). Another pretty nifty trick. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Infinity does not have a predecessor, so it makes no sense to > count back from it a finite number of steps. If infinity does not have predecessors (ie is immune to normal arithmetic operations) then it is not possible for a sequence to approach it by adding a finite amount to succesive terms in order to approach it. This means that a sequence can not meaningfuly be asymptotic with infinity (meaning I have to be able to draw a asymptote, at least in theory, in order to demonstrate the limit). > If one constructs the Ordinals, which are isomorphism classes of > well-ordered sets, and the Cardinals, which are equivalence > classes of equipotent sets, one will automatically end up with > all sorts of transfinite numbers. If infinity is not a number, how is it possible to have a definite number (ie transfinite) which is larger than it? My contention is that number theory as you present it is playing fast and loose with the concept of infinity not being a number or visa versa. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

RE: infinity & set membership
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The argument I supplied earlier for the rational nature of 0.1234... >still holds. >Math Man Aleph-Naught bottles of beer on the wall. Aleph-Naught bottles of beer. If some finite subset should happen to fall, There'll be Aleph-Naught bottles of beer on the wall. For those really long road trips, or when you choose to read all the cypherpunks traffic. James Q 1. Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, commenting specifically but not exclusively on its effects on the development of 14th century South America. Describe in detail. Be brief concise and specific. Give examples.

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > And I contend that ANY number which is Real can be expressed by the decimal > > expansion above. Which clearly qualifies as a formal system. > > To be a formal system of the type required, you would also have to > specify deterministic rules that could generate the "Ai" values. The > key distinction is between "expressed by" and "generated by". But we do have a formal system for generating those terms. Dedekind Cuts used to enumerate the value of an arbitrary length compared to the unit length.

1 0

UNS_top
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

01-16-97. Reuters: "Unstoppable Internet will defy controls" Governments which seek to restrain the freedom of speech and tax the vast electronic commerce spawned by the Internet will almost certainly be wasting their time, experts say, and that any attempt to control traffic over the Internet will be futile. Governments in China, Burma and Singapore have already tried to discipline this on-line activity with minimal success. Dr Bob Glass of Sun Microsystems Inc said any attempt by governments to curtail any of this would be a waste of time. Not even the most powerful computers will be able to effectively patrol the world's telephone lines. Individual computer experts will always be one step ahead. "Big brother is out there trying to monitor this, but I don't think they're competent enough," he said. "Government is not really aware of the magnitude of money exchange on the web, but there's really not much they can do about it." Professor Patrick Purcell from London's Imperial College describes the Internet as a highly subversive phenomenom for international telecommunications, for a nation's state security and for international commerce. ----- UNS_top

2 1

Re: infinity & set membership (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What could be the problem here? One problem might be that an integer > (not including infinity) divided by "infinity" should be 0. This ratio has one of 3 outcomes in my system depending on the rate of approach to infinity of the defining functions, oo/oo = 0 if the denominator grows faster than the numerator oo/oo = oo if the numerator grows faster than the denominator oo/oo = 1 if the two functions grow at equal rates Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Sandy and the Doc
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz wrote: > I hope if such a system is set up, people who use it will realize that > email is not 100% reliable. Just because algebra.com sent mail to > toad.com, doesn't mean that toad.com actually received it. A small > fraction of a percent of these messages will be lost. Are there any critereon established, yet, as to what type of content will be necessary for a letter to get 'lost'?

1 0

Re: GSM crypto upgrade? (was Re: Newt's phone calls)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> writes: > At 4:39 AM -0800 1/16/97, Adam Back wrote: > >- PIN for phone's RSA signature keys > > It is not clear you need signatures in the secure phone case. Eric > Blossom's 3DES uses straight DH for key exchange with verbal verification > that both ends are using the same key. How does Eric's box display the negotiated key to the user? (I don't recall the pair I saw having displays). > As long as the man in the middle can't imitate a familiar voice, > this procedure is reasonably secure. This is the approach taken by PGPfone also. If the value of the conversations was high (>$100,000?) passable voice imitation wouldn't be that hard I suspect. Also I thought it would be kind of cute if there were some way for phones to exchange their signature keys `face to face' as well. > I agree that signatures of some kind are needed to identify the phone to > the cell company to prevent an all too familiar technique of stealing phone > service. But this protection would not be a 3rd party cell phone upgrade. It's about time something was done about that problem. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 2

Re: GSM crypto upgrade? (was Re: Newt's phone calls)
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Shear <azur(a)netcom.com> writes: > For voice calls, it is not possible to merely insert a more secure crypto > function (e.g., IDEA) inside the less secure A5 crypto, unless the GSM base > station's protocol is aware the subscriber unit is using the more secure > crypto. Otherwise, when the GSM base station unwraps the A5 encrypted data > stream, which it assumes will contain digitized voice packets in the clear, > it will not find what its looking for and will be unable to convert the > packets to a circuit-switched voice signal. The circuit-switched voice signal is digital also, and the voice packet payload is transferred byte for byte into the circuit switched link right? So to insert IDEA encryption inside the A5 layer, you'd need to packetize the IDEA ciphertext so that it conforms to the voice packet spec (to fool the unwrapping the GSM station performs into thinking the packets are voice packets). Is that possible? Is the packet switched protocol non-error corrected? (ie Is packet dropping expected?) If so you need to use an IDEA mode which does not rely on previous packets. > If, as I have previously stated, the subscriber instead uses the data port > of his instrument and establishes a data link with his payload protected by > the more the secure crypto this is entirely feasible. If the above is infeasible. Probably this is a more practical approach anyway, as the data port has been already engineered to solve some of problems that would be encountered, and you would be duplicating effort. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > In short you are saying there are Reals which can not be > expressed in the format: > AmEm + Am-1Em-1 + ... + A0E0 . B0E-1 + B1E-2 + ... + BnE-n+1 > where m and n -> infinity. Another way of saying this is > that there are Reals for which membership in a set of Reals, > because they are uncountable and therefore unrepresentable, > is not possible. From a set perspective this means, Again, we may speak of a representation for the Reals within a formal system, although we may not speak of "The Representation of X" for every single Real X. We cannot assign to every Real a finite representation, but we can talk about the infinite representation all Reals have within a formal system without running out of space. The inability of a formal system to talk about each Real individually, or equivalently, that there are Real numbers which are not finitely denumerable, does not mean that there are Reals which do not have an representation as a non-ending sequence of symbols. > R = [[-infinity, ..., m] [n, ..., 0] [0, ..., p] [q, ..., +infinity]] > such that there are uncountable numbers between m,n or p,q; etc. Infinity does not have a predecessor, so it makes no sense to count back from it a finite number of steps. > Clearly in contradiction with the base axioms of > mathematics as described by Euclid in defining a line. This point completely escapes me. > And I contend that ANY number which is Real can be > expressed by the decimal expansion above. Which clearly > qualifies as a formal system. Useful formal systems employ finite strings from some alphabet. The set of all possible such strings is countable. The set of all sequences from the same alphabet is uncountable, but not particularly useful for theorem-proving, at least in a finite amount of time. > To say there are Reals for which there is no linear > representation is the same as saying there are lengths which > can't be measured. Now since a line is nothing but a set of > points, which don't have size, but only position this > obviously holds no water, unless you are saying it is not > possible to place two points arbitrarily close together, > which would imply that points have some sort of width, > clearly against the definition of a point. No. Points do not have width. > This all goes back to what I said in a earlier post, the > problem comes from our axiomatic (ie taken on faith, > unprovable) use of infinity. Without a clear and precise > dilineation of those axioms prior to the proof such > conclusions are worthless. In Axiomatic Set Theory, it is necessary to postulate (either implicitly or explicitly) the existance of one infinite set. This is an act of faith. Whether any infinities really exist is a matter for philosophy. > Several of you have said "infinity is not a number", this > is an axiom. Change the axioms and the whole structure > changes. I am simply saying that perhaps we should look at > the "infinity is not a number" axiom, much as geometers look > at Euclids Fifth Postulate. There is nothing inherent in > nature that prefers one axiomatic expression of infinity > over the other. If one constructs the Ordinals, which are isomorphism classes of well-ordered sets, and the Cardinals, which are equivalence classes of equipotent sets, one will automatically end up with all sorts of transfinite numbers. We normally don't include infinities when we build the rationals, the reals, or the complex numbers, unless we need them for a particular application, such as in using the extended real number line in defining measures. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

RE: THIS IS THE FIRST MESSAGE TO THE MODERATED CYPHERPUNKS LIST
by Butler 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > >>Welcome to (what I hope is) a more useful and less confrontative >>cypherpunks list. Now, can we get back to talking about cryptography? > > "can we get 'BACK' to talking about cryptography?" You seem to have misspelled START. >Scott

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Paul Foley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 22:34:05 -0600 (CST), Jim Choate wrote: Forwarded message: > Yes, the Reals can be constructed from the Rationals. No, the > Reals are not a subset of the Rationals. An arbitrary Real can be constructed from the Rationals. If we accept the proposition, as posed apparently by you and others, of uncountable Reals then your 'assumption' fails, otherwise the 'uncountable' members would be countable. There are no "uncountable" numbers -- uncountability is a property of the set, not an individual member of the set. The set of reals cannot be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the integers (strictly, positive integers, but it amounts to the same thing). > Dedekind Cuts are a simple abstraction, often used to construct > the Reals from the Rationals in undergraduate calculus courses. > Conceptually, one makes a single "cut" in the set of Rationals, > dividing it into two parts, all of the members of one part being > greater than all of the members of the other. The number of ways > of doing this correspond to the Reals. The number of cuts are 1-to-1 with the Reals, they are not the Reals. There is no way I can make a cut which is 3.1527, only 1-to-1 with the number(s). Important distinction. Cut the rational numbers into two sets, A containing all the negative rationals and all those that have squares less than 2, and B containing all the positive rationals that have squares greater than 2. There you have a cut which is 1.41421... (i.e., sqrt(2)). So you can define irrational numbers from the rationals (an irrational number is a cut such that the first set (A) has no largest member and the second set (B) has no smallest member). -- Paul Foley <mycroft(a)actrix.gen.nz> --- PGPmail preferred PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33 C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes a feeling is all we humans have to go on. -- Kirk, "A Taste of Armageddon", stardate 3193.9

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Forwarded message: > > > Only countably many real numbers, or members of any uncountable > > set, are denumerable. It is the property of being uncountable, > > rather than of being real or complex, which is important here. > > In short you are saying there are Reals which can not be expressed in the > format: > > AmEm + Am-1Em-1 + ... + A0E0 . B0E-1 + B1E-2 + ... + BnE-n+1 All reals are equivalent to sequences of digits, but there are reals such that there is no algorithm to generate their digits. It happens because there are "more" real numbers than algorithms. > > In general, only countably many members of any uncountable set > > can be precisely specified within any formal system, given names > > comprised of strings of symbols, or other similar things. > > And I contend that ANY number which is Real can be expressed by the decimal > expansion above. Which clearly qualifies as a formal system. I suggest the following mental exercise. FORGET FOR A MOMENT ABOUT REAL NUMBERS. Let's deal with mummies: DEFINITION: I define a mummy as possibly infinite sequence of characters, separated by one dot, such that only characters abcdefghij are allowed. Also, mummies that are represented by finite sequences of characters are by this definition equivalent to mummies that end with an infinite sequence of letters "a". END DEFINITION. Examples: dce.abdefhaabdaaa ae.cacacacacacaca... and so on. Obviously, some of the mummies, such as c.cccccc... (with an ininite sequence of "c") CAN be generated by algorithms. The interesting fact, that i will prove below, is that some of them cannot be generated by any algorithm. THEOREM: The set of mummies is more than countable PROOF: if it is countable, we can construct a mummy that is not counted. it is easy. THEOREM: there are mummies such that there is no algorithm that can print them. PROOF: the set of mummies is more than countable, the set of algorithms is countable, therefore there is no way to construct a one-to-one correspondence between mummies and algorithms. Do you agree? Now let's back to the original problem of real numbers: the only difference between mummies and real numbers is that digits 0123456789 are replaced by characters abcdefghij. Not a whole lot of difference, so everything that applies to mummies applies to real numbers. - Igor.

1 0

Re: GSM technology
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Shear <azur(a)netcom.com> writes: > [very useful explanation of GSM TDMA, and the new HSCSD] 64 kbit/s tied to ISDN is very nice technology. > ENCRYPTED GSM LINKS > If the GSM phone includes a data port, as some already do, just connect > your laptop, dial your ISP and 'push' the encrypted traffic over that link > (e.g., using TCP/IP and PGPfone). This would obviously be possible, but to my mind reduces the appeal of the system. Not every one has a laptop. Even if the potential user does have a laptop, booting windows95, and starting up PGPfone is an onerous task compared to just dialing a number on a mobile phone. It's a user friendliness issue, and a question of ergonomics. A mobile phone is more portable than a GSM phone with a laptop plugged into the data port. You can't fit the laptop and GSM phone combination into your shirt pocket. What are you going to use for a handset? Radio operators headphone (with mike attached to the headset) plugged into the laptop? That's more dangling wires, and makes the system less portable, and even more onerous to setup (take laptop from carry bag, plug in headphones, plug in phone data port, wait for laptop to boot, etc). Even for crypto enthousiasts, I would submit that many would neglect to go through the hassle of going through PGPfone for most conversations, and would instead just use the mobile phone in the clear (or with A5 encryption). This for similar reasons to the situation with PGP itself, many people rarely use PGP, even though there is abundant software available to use it seamlessly with most mail readers. (I can vouch for mailcrypt.el the emacs interface to PGP, and use it for to anyone who has a PGP key, and does not express displeasure at receiving encrypted email). Also, the cell phone tarriffs may be higher if you need higher bandwidth to get the software only voice codec implementations in PGPfone to produce equivalent full-duplex voice quality to that expected from a digital mobile phone. Not knocking the mobile phone and laptop combination for the purpose of having mobile TCP/IP access from a laptop, I know several people who have this combination, though only at 9.6kbits, and even at that speed it is very neat. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

2 1

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > An arbitrary Real can be constructed from the Rationals. If > we accept the proposition, as posed apparently by you and > others, of uncountable Reals then your 'assumption' fails, > otherwise the 'uncountable' members would be countable. We can construct the Reals from the Rationals without having to speak of each specific Real while doing so. A formal system, having only a countable number of strings of symbols from its alphabet, can speak of "The Real Numbers" even though it cannot speak of "The Real Number X" for every single X in the Reals. > A 'limit point' is not the same as 'equal to'. Arbitrarily > close is not equivalent, inherent in the definition of a > limit point is the concept of 'little o' and 'big o', or > worded differently our axiomatic definition of infinity. In standard analysis, the limit of a sequence A[n] is a value x such that given any positive epsilon, no matter how small, we can find a point in the sequence such that all its members after that point are within epsilon of x. Such a limit, if it exists, is unique and exactly defined. "Little o" and "big o" are concepts from complexity theory and I am not precisely sure why you feel they need to be mentioned. > I can, but there is no fundamental rule in mathematics > that requires me to ignore the small but distinct > difference between the element in the original set and the > sequences used to approximate it. In the general case, the limit point will not be a member of the sequence which approximates it. Although every member of the sequence is a finite distance away from the limit, the limit itself is, as I previously mentioned, exactly known without any ambiguity. > It is something that must be agreed upon by accepting a > particular axiomatic definition of infinity. An "infinity" is simply the property of being able to be put in 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset of oneself. > The number of cuts are 1-to-1 with the Reals, they are not > the Reals. There is no way I can make a cut which is > 3.1527, only 1-to-1 with the number(s). Important > distinction. Mathematical objects are sets with structure. We generally consider two mathematical objects equivalent if there exists a 1-1 correspondence between the respective sets which is structure preserving. What the actual members of the set are, and how they were constructed, is usually unimportant. For all practical purposes we may refer to any mathematical object isomorphic to the Reals as "The Reals", without any confusion. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

how to get off this list
by Marc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How on earth an i meant to get off this mailing list??? have tried loadz of the un scribe says its undone it but it bloody hasnt someone help me

1 0