- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

John Gilmore the fascist cocksucker
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker John Gilmore is a fascist cocksucker Sandy Sandfort is a censorous motherfucker Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Numbers we cannot talk about
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Elliott wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > At 10:48 PM 1/18/1997, Secret Squirrel wrote: > > >Is it REALLY true that there are real numbers that cannot be > > >generated by any algorithm? Some guy said that since the set of > > >algorithms is countable, but the set of real numbers is more than > > >countable, there must be some numbers for which there is no > > >algorithms that generate them. > > > > There are sets of real numbers whose existence we can prove, but which > > we cannot otherwise describe. This is more extreme than being > > "generated by an algorithm". We can't even tell somebody which > > numbers to generate! (I take "to generate" here to mean "to compute a > > decimal approximation.") > > > > The set of real numbers is uncountable as is the set of subsets of the > > real numbers. Yet, we have only countably infinite ways to describe > > sets of numbers. > > > > All sets of numbers which we can describe can be described with a > > finite set of symbols. (Human beings are unable to distinguish > > between an infinite number of states.) The set of combinations of > > this finite set is infinite, but countable. > > > > Perhaps the axioms in set theory that tells us that the integers > have an uncountable number of subsets is, in point of fact, false. > Perhaps only those subsets of the integers that can be described > by an algorithm exist (actually, contrary to what the usual axioms of > set theory assert). It is very interesting. My limited understanding of this approach is that they say that only things that can be constructed by some positive method exist (please correct me if I am mistaken). But the question is, where do they stop and what exactly is "construction?" Say, does sqrt(2) "exist" in their sense of the world? We know we can calculate any given number of digits in it, is that enough? > We know that the set of axioms which tell us that there are unaccountably > many reals can be satisfied by a countable model! > (Downward Louwenheim Skolem Tarski theorem.) > > I know that Standard mathematical axioms yields lots of interesting > results, but when it talks of the infinite and we are dealing > with a practical subject like cryptography or even physics it > should not be taken too seriously. (With respect to uncountable sets.) 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.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: This was an utterly fascinating post, if y'all don't mind my saying so. I certainly can't vouch for the details (or the theories), but whether any of the details are deliberate experiments on Dimitri's part or not, the totality of what has taken place would make an excellent source for a post-graduate study. Am I right? I would suggest, however, if you're looking for a likely candidate for really advanced social manipulation/experimentation, you should be looking at the list owner(s), not the gadflys. There's this silly theory some people have, that once in a while the little people (the good guys?) win enough points to set the bad guys back a ways. Not in 20th century Amerika. Read Carl Oglesby's article "Paranoia As A Way Of Knowing", and think: "Paranoia As A Way Of Knowing Who We Are." [much text deleted below] > 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. > 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: > 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.

1 0

Re: 'Monster' numbers
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:08 PM 1/19/1997, Jim Choate wrote: >In reference to numbers which you can't describe, if you examine the work >they are ALL in the Complex domain, none of them are Real's. This is incorrect. The argument outlined applied to real numbers only. If you wish to refute the argument please do so. You might find it helpful to review the reference in Smullyan's book. >If there existed a Real for which we could not describe this would imply >that we could not draw a line of that length. The subtlety of the idea lies in the fact that you can't make a statement like "$foo is not describable" where $foo means anything. Any number for which you can say, "I can draw a line which is $bar units long" is describable. Math Man

1 0

Re: Sandy and the Doc
by WinSock Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz <frantz(a)netcom.com> writes: > 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. Failing something catastrophic like a disk failure or a host down for more than a week, this should not be the case. Almost every site running sendmail has the Os ("SuperSafe") option set. That means sendmail will not respond to a "." at the end of a DATA command with SMTP code 250 until it has written the incoming message (and queue info) to disk and called fsync. Thus, you may get 2 copies of a message, but mail messages should not just disappear regularly at all, even if the network goes down or a machine crashes. Non-sendmail MTA's tend to be even more strict about this, not even allowing this behavior to be disabled.

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

Securing the end-points
by GLEN_MCBRIDE＠BayNetworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greetings! I was wondering if in addition to all the work and discussion regarding crypto which generally centres around the transmission path information takes traveling from end-point to end-point, there is any work being done to secure the end-points themselves (I.e. files on your PC etc.) In my view the end-points present the most vulnerability in the overall message path from person to person. It is at these points that the message/information exists as cleartext even if for a short period of time. While of course it is possible to PGP encode your files is this a practical way to go about securing your system? I am aware or RSA secure but is that all there is out there? Thanks in advance Glen McBride Bay Networks ASIA-PAC customer service Australia Views are my own and do not represent those of my employer ===== CURRENT PGP KEY FOLLOWS ===== - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQERAzDFDk4AAAEIAJvkPKWMS8TR5eNNQZw5FjUg8roSe/wFdw3d8vCEfb2lX3G+ qBAQKuTSUAhO8marZvNWF9VPuyqkOGEOrwzdont8jSHAdF9dguh1sP56eGXzyn8n mDN1Fw8vQiNrttvCEYUjvLEML8tFlLc7QlQRkAMEGrkH29D4ck3wOkJLEaSZrTcO RIZAzOBVVvrJORVKsREnGG4IrItJCiREw7Gp/LXIHMSEBCdu2+uaNc9nHQxKcYZc yx9UiiZ0XP6TzzUtkD00ZDtO8OdZCAhXdj0zbCUKVrzuY37EgnFVFQ7SlZZAQn/U Jx26k0eZvZhXjhSVd3QyElbJYNFVLrdyU+h+Gt0AIwQAAAABtCpHbGVuIE1jQnJp ZGU8R0xFTl9NQ0JSSURFQGJheW5ldHdvcmtzLmNvbT4= =N/lg - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMNS1vy63clPofhrdAQHn1wgAjHV2vKXIEY4qZ/Rm2rq4hnJsUJDt+zd5 BbYo/BZBruwX+gqylYlbOemkPvZ7ktAMdu9jUFfaJQ7Cb3jT4kgfp2dqqle6yaq1 0nxU9m7BMiVnSqevtK5Fy+thR/yVZWdHi1LFMy48yp8FCaqvMkEruscOsG0ydUNM lyf3OCNGdN7LQcxQkRE9UzKPwEpacDD/afU5W5aZhhchkpAH9t/kqKzvgXxia1VF 4hfOEcCMN21JO6QGqdnHASVNoIdV44O6BlUPhv5omAqofgU58tnbJ9G3/24zjecM QhxTMGBv+aDB1DtQ+k9wDJTdPBLwhqyWUZWImN3RPVnQb1Ec1CVM8A== =yLIB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

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: 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