Softy <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