cypherpunks Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9

[brian carroll]

Softy <softservant at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 10762 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131003/1f7c6693/attachment-0001.txt>