December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > [...] > 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. They are 1-1 with the Reals, you can define all the operations on them that are defined for reals, for every representable real (like 3.1527) there exists a DC. You have some idea, perhaps that there are "real" reals, as opposed to the various constructs for defining them? Perhaps you could define what a "real" real would be? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

FW: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE.
by Butler 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. > > > > ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC06CB.51582470 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; NAME="/HPOFFICE/NETMAIL/C1738354.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970120081000.9885T(a)crl6.crl.com> =8C=8D=8AFrom : "Gerardo NUNO"@[PRCL/01] ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC06CB.51582470 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; NAME="/HPOFFICE/NETMAIL/C1738355.txt" Content-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970120081000.9885U(a)crl6.crl.com> 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. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC06CB.51582470--

1 0

Server Authentication
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I recently came aware of an interesting problem in server authentication. I.e. How does a browser plugin validate the server it is working for. There are many reasons for a plugin to want to validate its web server including contractual relations, but the one that most appeals to me is that the plugin provides access to confidential data which is used in an application distributed between the client machine and the server. Since the data is confidential, the plugin doesn't want to send it to just any server who can serve up a web page in the correct format, so it needs to authenticate the server. Now the obvious way to validate the server would be through the certificates exchanged when the SSL session was set up. (I am assuming a SSL session here because you shouldn't send confidential data over a non-encrypted link.) However, I haven't found an API where the plugin can discover the certificate used by the server, so it appears you have to roll your own. Rolling your own seems to come up against the problem mentioned by the IPSEC people, i.e. if you separate authentication and encryption the places you can end up are: (1) Encrypted and authenticated. (2) Encrypted but not authenticated. (3) Not encrypted and subject to a man in the middle authentication attack. (i.e. If an IP router can route your authentication packets, so can one running Mallory's special code. In the case above, the hostile server acts as a router for authentication.) (4) Unauthenticated and unencrypted. Does anyone have a solution to this authentication problem? Are signed applets discriminating enough to differentiate between different validated hosts and adjust local permissions differently (at the file level at least) for each? (Or is it more like, "Oh this applet is from marketspam.com which is signed by the US Post Office, it can read or write anything on the machine." Yea, right :-( ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in Pittsburgh, Packets in | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Pakistan. - me | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

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: 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: [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

3 2

Re: Monitoring the monitors [Was: Gilmore and Sandfort
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ross Wright wrote: > On or About 19 Jan 97 at 17:37, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. We already get the censored stuff > > on the alleged-to-be "unedited" list, so by looking at the censored > > list only, we can do the subtraction more reliably than Sandfort. > > Just the censored list is needed, not the cut-out stuff, as far as I know. > I disagree. Or I don't quite understand what you are saying. I > want to see the moderated list and I want to see what was removed. > So since I was automatically given the Moderated List, I just put in > a subscription, under a different address, so I can easily see what was > removed. Of the three lists that now exist: unedited, edited, and > removed posts, I would chose to remove the unedited version so that I > can keep my eye on what the moderators decide I should not see. That > gives me an insight into what they think. Ross, I agree in principle, but not in fact. If the "removed" list was accurate, I'd say yes, but not only is it suspect, Sandy admitted personally that some items could "fall thru the cracks" and not make it to either the edited or removed list. The only way to guarantee the removed list is to subtract the censored list from the uncensored list, and hope that the uncensored list is complete.

1 0

1997 Mac Crypto Conf registration
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:33:11 -0800 From: Vinnie Moscaritolo <vinnie(a)webstuff.apple.com> To: Multiple recipients of <mac-crypto(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: 1997 Mac Crypto Conf registration -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- hey all; I have posted a registration webpage for the 1997 Mac Crypto Conf at http://www.vmeng.com/mc/conf.html If you plan to give a talk there, I am looking for abtracts by end of Jan thanks Vinnie Moscaritolo http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A - ------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Pretty Safe Mail 1.0 iQCVAwUBMtvcsfMF2+rAU+UdAQFOogP/R1/WmmAi3oEgLsC1il1OKf+7jR9j4L5U tAvhZIB6nyYpuHdP1fZ+/KfyCi4fYDmHIO4wVJo1BfbUtYL0YkIqzw/00JM8zfHR Zm9pcjSo70EDZPuypYyH+t0RlXJZj1eU0KjhAtRGeeWxAhP686wWCvz8hW4f2VfX uiLObXiqXiw= =faEk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://offshore.com.ai/fc97/ "If *you* don't go to FC97, *I* don't go to FC97"

1 0

Re: [Math Noise] (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate allegedly said: > > > 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 No, that's not what he is saying. What you have written does not represent a *specific* number. He is saying that IF you have a particular scheme for representing *specific* numbers, you can only represent countably many -- for any given scheme, there are numbers you can't represent. To put it another way a scheme that says "you can represent numbers as half infinite strings of digits with a single period somewhere" doesn't actually *specify* any numbers. A scheme that says "start with the number 1 and increment it 400 times" actually specifies a number. > 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". -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

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

1 0