December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> writes: > 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 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. The problem here is that the terms "infinity" and "number" are used to refer to many different things in mathematics. We use "infinity" as a term for transfinite Cardinals and Ordinals, but also use it when describing convergence on the reals, to indicate that a sequence increases without bound. We use it in calculus to describe the limits of integration over all real numbers, a set which does not include any infinite numbers at all. Similar we use the term "number" to refer to Cardinals, Ordinals, Reals, Integers, Complex, Quaternians, or whatever, hoping that what we mean by it will be clear from the context. With respect to the Real numbers, infinity is not a number, but simply a way of saying something increases without bound or that we wish to include all the positive or negative reals when performing some mathematical operation. With regard to Ordinals and Cardinals, not only is infinity a number, but there are an uncountable number of different infinities, which cannot be placed in 1-1 correspondence with each other. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

Re: INV_ade
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

# Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

DHM patent
by Richard Schroeppel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

re: A.Walker's query about expiration date of DH patent. (I'm not a lawyer: This is just my opinion. Get advice from a professional for making your business decisions.) A couple of years ago, as part of the legislation implementing the GATT treaty, Congress changed the patent lifetime. The old rule was 17 years from grant date; the new rule is 20 years from filing date. There were various transition rules; one was that holders of current patents could select either rule. Presumably they will choose the rule that gives the later expiration date. In the case of the DHM patent #4200770, this gives then a few more months, to Sept. 6 1997. Roger Schlafly has made a reasonable case that the DHM patent is invalid because the invention was "published" more than a year before the patent was filed. (He dug up a copy of a preprint they were circulating with a stamped received-date of ?May 1976?.) There is also a patent by Hellman & Merkle that seems to deal with the (busted) knapsack cryptosystem. It's number 4218582, filed Oct 6, 1977, granted Aug 19, 1980. My cursory reading shows that it includes the math both for knapsack crypto and for doing modular exponentiation. It might be a good idea to look this over to make sure it doesn't affect your plans. Rich Schroeppel rcs(a)cs.arizona.edu

1 0

Disseminating public-key crypto source code
by Jon Orwant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've written a few Perl routines for public-key cryptography. I'd like to freely disseminate the source code (starting with ElGamal) to as many people as I can, It's my understanding that there are two orthogonal restrictions: 1) ITAResque: I can't give code to non-U.S. citizens. 2) PKPesque: Using public-key crypto is an infringement, although disseminating/possessing the source code is not. While I'm sure these are oversimplifications, it would seem that I can release my source code over the Internet provided I install a simple verification mechanism (cf. MIT's PGP distribution) to ensure that only people claiming to be U.S. citizens have access privileges. Am I correct? If so, why aren't more people doing this? Jon Orwant MIT Media Lab orwant(a)media.mit.edu

1 0

Re: a comment of Vulis's
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr Vulis made a comment that there was the threat of persons in favor of the moderator being able to get away with slander while those victims being unable to respond. I assume that the moderator will refrain from such action, but if something were actually cut, I could get it through anyway. At least until majordomo is secured against such intrusion. The list won't be truly secure until no one can request the subscription list. If I felt that I needed to get my message past the moderator, I would just request the complete listing of cypherpunks subscribers, copy that into the Bcc: field of eudora, and forge an address. Now my message would get through, my computer would probably be tied up for an hour or so distributing my statement, but my message would get through. The security necessary to counteract this would be to either make the subscription list unavailable, or delete the actual addresses from the list. For instance Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> would become Sean Roach. Now people could still see who was on the list, but couldn't use it to negate the established distribution system.

1 0

[FLAME] [PURE VITROL] Re: IMDMP: SOURCE...
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:05 PM 1/18/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis wrote: >> Non sequitor. > ^ >Do "cypher punks" use lousy spelling as a kind of "poor fag's crypto"? I'm a heterosexual, so I may be off the mark here, but. Reguarding my history books, Mr. Hoover (can't remember his first name), of F.B.I. fame, a reported homosexual, was one of the biggest gaybashers of his era. By your acidic comments, are you trying to tell us something?

1 0

ElGamal
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. Mayonnaise is the living proof that anal sex causes pregnancy. o /\O/ O Timothy C. Mayonnaise 0 \\ | 0-# // | / \

1 0

"Technical data" exemptions in new crypto regs
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Can anyone who knows more than I do answer this? --Declan] --- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:45:44 -0500 (EST) To: declan(a)well.com (Declan McCullagh) From: Solveig Bernstein <sberns(a)cato.org> What have the new crypto regs done to the "technical data" and the "public domain" exemptions from ITAR? The problem is this: as I understand it, the Commerce Dept. regs exempt teaching and print presentations generally, but these exemptions do not apply to "encryption software." Does this mean that the exemptions do not apply to *teaching about* encryption software or *publications about* encryption software? Or *only* that the exemptions do not apply to diskette-contained source code or object code. In other words, the new regs might completely decontrol teaching and publication of something like Professor Bernstein's Snuffle. On the other hand, the new regs might, like ITAR, restrict teaching and publication of Snuffle (as well as publication of source code in diskette format). The purpose of the question is to understand whether a First Amendment challenge to the new regs is a First Amendment challenge to a restriction on *teaching, publication, and program distribution* or just a challenge to a restriction on *program distribution.* Solveig Bernstein, Esq. (202) 789-5274 (202) 842-3490 (fax) Assistant Director of Telecommunications & Technology Studies Cato Institute 1000 Mass. Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 ------------------------- The Netly News Network http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: [FLAME] [PURE VITROL] Re: IMDMP: SOURCE...
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> writes: > At 10:05 PM 1/18/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis wrote: > >> Non sequitor. > > ^ > >Do "cypher punks" use lousy spelling as a kind of "poor fag's crypto"? > > I'm a heterosexual, so I may be off the mark here, but. Reguarding my > history books, Mr. Hoover (can't remember his first name), of F.B.I. fame, a > reported homosexual, was one of the biggest gaybashers of his era. By your > acidic comments, are you trying to tell us something? Homosexual activists have accused many prominent people, like Hoover and da Vinci, of sharing their sexual perversions. I have seen no evidence that Hoover was a pervert other than a claim by one woman, a proven liar, that she was present at an orgy where Hoover wore a woman's dress and engaged in sex with men. Several other people who she claimed were present at the orgy called her a liar. She's dead, or she would have probably been supporting Geekmore and EFF today. You may recall that the moderator cocksucker Sandfart invited me to a "cypher punks" meating in San Francisco, and if I had accepted, would have told many lies about my participation in their homosexual orgies. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: I beg you, PLEASE prove that 0.123456789101112131415 is IRRATIONAL
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:38 PM 1/19/97 -0600, snow wrote: > x=0; > x1=0; > x++; > x--; > > Would give you all int's, the only problem you have is granularity. Nice, but you have a typo, the result would be the same as x is both incremented and decremented before it can be output. I am assumming that the second block of code has it right. > x=0.00000000001; > y=0.00000000001; > x1=x; > x=x+y; > x1=x1-y; Also, I am assumming that the increment, decrement portion of the code should be in a loop. Otherwise this will result in exactly one value for x, and one for x1. The output of the first block is x=1, x1=0. The output of the second block is x=0.00000000002, y=0.00000000001, x1=0.00000000000. Also, the code does have other errors that don't "ring any bells" as they allow the mind to figure out what your intent is. Not unlike the many complaints in "The Far Side" where everyone complains that it is the female mosquito that bites people while ignoring that no mosquito has ever willingly walked into an appropiately scaled house wearing a hat.

1 0