[12] cryptologic processing

[brian carroll]

--- overview ---

when cryptography is removed from a computer-only context, the boundaries
in which it could be modeled to function within would expand into a wider
realm of considerations that otherwise may never be questioned, and thus
exist limited in that computational domain, confined in a given threshold
of interpretation. thus, to exit the ideological constraint of 'knowing' a
particular approach, and then eventually to reenter the computer context
with perhaps a wider range of consideration for what might be possible...

i think one of the most evident assumptions about computer cryptography as
it exists is the role of mathematics (if not algebraic,) in defining the
model if not paradigm for computer encryption. this could be a false view
due to a naive outsider observer of these technological events, though it
allows consideration of the involved issues nonetheless, however accurate.

the case has been made that [signs] are used in language and mathematics,
and that this is the basis for code that is used to program software, and
it is tied into equations, algorithms of mathematics yet also software that
models a cryptographic process, to encrypt and decrypt information. and so
it has been questioned - how are these signs themselves modeled in terms of
their truth, or has this not occurred and potentially ungrounded 'data' and
beliefs are the default, as this relates to language, observation, and
relations that are the basis for this cryptographic exchange.

thus a question of [code] could be removed from consideration of the truth
of the symbols and signs used in these interactions, their foundation, if
they are actually accounted for in their truth, grounded or ungrounded, as
this relates to issues of security, secrecy, privacy, and so on. and so a
default condition seemingly exists, where this code itself, programming,
and software/hardware solutions could potentially be ungrounded, if they
are operating within frameworks and context of partial-truth (pT), versus a
model that is empirical grounded, not just in terms of the mathematics as
1=1, further on to account for 1=truth. which seems to be missing in all
such equations, as representations can be detached from their accounting.

and so the bulletproof ideology could exist that mathematics equals strong
code, on the basis of 'belief in mathematics' that could tend towards the
ideological. yet in this way, functions beyond proof and other dynamics may
rely on a theorized capacity and theorized security framework that itself
is the weakness, as pT=/T, as this structuralizes a basis for exploitation.


     [code] ---> mathematics


so it is to question a prevailing condition or potential assumption that
the simple act of representing reality can be equated with reality itself
as a belief system, that becomes faith based, or based on personal trust
issues as a security model. the more esoteric the mathematic equations or
code, perhaps the more secure, if it were not involving rigor, though that
appears opposite the nature of the discipline or its practicioners and
developers, in that a community overviews and oversees development of the
crypto and its security and integrity is also a basis for their own.


     [code] ---> mathematics  == security


so a presumption could exist that the involvement or role of mathematics in
cryptography is how it establishes its security. and this text is to call
this fundamental or foundational notion into question. is it really true?

another way of evaluating this condition is that 1=1 would be the basis for
establishing security. and mathematically it could represent 'truth' via
this correspondence or pattern matching of [signs].

and yet in an ungrounded condition, pattern matching of [sign]=[sign] can
equate with 'truth' via its representation, yet not its actuality beyond
the signage itself, thereby [1]=[1] could remain variable and only in a
context of pseudo-truth by default. if ["sign"] is not accounted for in a
shared empirical model. it is just language then, communication at a given
surface-level interpretation. there is the missing dimension of philosophy
that validates the truth it potentially involves. it is not just about
signs -- their truth must accounted for beyond this immediate level of
calculation. it involves and requires more consideration and evaluation.


     [code] ---> mathematics  != security


in other words it is to propose that 'truth' is not by default within the
signs used to represent a situation, because they can be ungrounded and
function as if literature - describing a situation, though it involves
variability by default. an issue of relativistic observation and how the
data that is modeled is accounted for, removed of error or reliant upon it,
and thus the gap between what is real and what is represented is at issue.

it would seem to involve 'pattern matching' as a concept, the basis for the
ability to establish 1=1 correlations in terms of number and its processing
via symbols and other signs that map into the world and manipulate these
relations and frameworks. and thus as stated, this A=A consideration is of
the domain of establishing truth via logical reasoning, and thus a realm of
thinking about concepts and ideas is involved, underneath the establishing
of these mathematical models and processes. the ideas involved in these
relations, as they become formalized. there is incoherence at this level,
as currently the ideology of binarism make this connection an issue of
shared belief in an approach, versus its truth beyond a given boundary.


     [code] ---> mathematics (concepts)


so it is to question what is going on at a more fundamental, foundational
level prior to this cryptographic modeling of information, such that What
If the concepts themselves are ungrounded in some way, such that variables
or representative signs or equations may not be by default /empirical/ and
instead could exist in domains of relativistic skew, distortion, and bias
in hidden ways that could also be exploited or subverted. thus while the
[signs] may be operational, are they actually grounded in truth or some
belief system that equates with truth, because it is assumed to exist in
the signage and not beyond it. in the manipulations not what is referenced.


     [code] ---> mathematics ('concepts')


thus to consider the deeper truth involved in such conceptualization, and
this relates number to letter in terms of its use as signage, as both of
these can function as language systems that are in ways integrated, yet
assumed to be differentiated at the level of mathematics and, say, writing
a novel or short-story fiction as this is believed different than novel
algorithms and exploratory equations and theoretical proofs. what if the
mathematical viewpoint is ungrounded or relativistic, for instance, or that
the literature could be more objective than equations filled with numbers

ultimately, the mathesis involved appears to not differentiate a model of
empirical truth in terms of A=A equivalence, from either math or language
in that both could be evaluated in this same context from the beginning. a
shared modeling in other words, potentially. so the alphanumeric code could
be integrated at a substructural level to the [signage] that differentiates
the mathematic and linguistic, yet this could also be a false perspective
or inaccurate belief and mistaken assumption- perhaps they are one system

so where this is going is to consider a particular existing viewpoint and
interpretative framework for crypto, especially as defined by computers and
peripherals, that establishes a fixed idea about what it is and involves
and yet may involve these hidden boundaries that are also warped or biased
towards certain interactions or investigations and can disallow others


    [code] ---> mathematics (algebra)


an example is if considering a given approach to crypto involves algebraic
functions as a paradigm as this relates to computation. this approach then
becomes the context for evaluation and mediation of representative [signs]
that may also be bounded in their interpretation in this way, due to the
delineation between mathematical and linguistic data. the "algebra" may
only be conceptualized and believed to function at the unit of [signs] and
their manipulation as signs, and not involve algebraic computations within
the [signage] itself, potentially, in terms of subsign units.

this is to attempt to convey that a boundary condition could be upheld that
views and models language as inviolable in terms of certain existing rules
such that a [word] is viewed as a unit, and not considered in its inherent
variability in terms of this same potential algebraic functioning. in that
the math is the math and the language is the linguistics, and the math is
doing things to the language based on particular established relations and
boundaries about what these relations and how they are believed to function
based on convention if not ideological views and understanding. it is very
abstract and perhaps inaccurate as stated here, yet seeks to ask- to what
extent is the information viewed passive, inert, and non-meaningful, as
this relates to its transformation (encryption) and reconstitution
(decryption). where is the boundary for this transmutative relation and
dynamics: is it inherently what mathematics does to language, from an
outside-in approach, such that mathematics acts upon the [signs], or might
it potentially involve accessing an inherent mathematical structure within
language itself, and thus a different boundary or relation could allow the
language itself to be the basis for the algorithms and equations, or to
bridge across these in a different, more integrated and meaningful way.

it makes little sense without visualizing it, yet email flintworks this
era  of devolving infrastructure and tools involve make it difficult to
convey in the given medium, thus limiting what can be easily accurately
shared and in what ways- forcing the perspective for signage, and thus
relationships


     [code] ---> mathematics (geometry)


likewise, if cryptographic operations involved a geometric modeling of data
this could also apply to how the content of the encryption scheme then is
evaluated and processed. and again, an issue of boundaries. how are the
[signs] considered in terms of the language or messaging involved. is this
an outside operation of geometry that transforms 'information' which is
measured by units of words and sentence structures and their formatting, or
may it potentially involve more than this, such that beyond this limit, a
subsign geometric structure could exist and be connected to, and become a
basis for this transformational processing. thus the 'truth' of the signs
as these relate in across the conventional line separating mathematics and
linguistics, in terms of a shared patterning that involves both domains.


     [code]  ==  (mathematic & linguistic)


so if considering the issue of boundaries and representation, and how logic
establishes these structures of observation and perception and modeling,
that perhaps code itself, in its truth, involves a more fluid interaction
in these domains than the traditional viewpoint can acknowledge, as this
relates to the concepts involved and how they are approached. for instance
computation or equations or algorithms, how data is processed, encrypted

in terms of pattern matching (A=A), this could span a model of both code as
a mathematic and linguistic structure, given 3-value and N-value logic. in
this way, the [sign] itself could not only have a mathematic operation that
is transforming it from the outside or external boundary, and instead this
processing could occur inside, and consist of its own equations, based upon
inherent calculative dimensions of its symbolic or sign-based linguistic
structuring (as language). in other words, a [word] could have calculative
and computational potential built-into it, in terms of its patterning and
yet if the word is not allowed to be evaluated beyond its whole conception,
the subsign structuring may be by default off-limits or made inaccessible.
this is to include smaller units than the word as sign, to include even
more basically letters, whereby for example the letter [Z] may only be
evaluated in terms of its being 'z' and not its components or ~various
structural relations with other letters, such as S|Z or N/Z or numbers: Z|5
and Z-2. though of course there is more to it than this, because the same
structure can be taken apart and evaluated in its individual components:
-/_ or > and <, etc


     [code] --->  pattern matching


so the idea is that programming itself is based within code and issues of
how it is modeled and how it represents the world, and it is to question if
this is actually truly grounded or based in an ideological belief system.
and so it is assumed there is partial grounding, in some ways, though a
realm of error or a gap exists between what is modeled and what exists
(pT=/T) and this includes the conceptualization of code itself as signage

likewise, the default boundaries of this code could effect how it is both
managed and processed, within what parameters. and thus the heavy reliance
on mathematics as if the basis for this strength, yet the same potential as
a weakness if it too is ungrounded or only partially so, in terms of the
potential for exploits based on these errored notions and beliefs. (A=B)

the cryptographic consideration in this scenario then, of how signs are
processed and conceived of, as units to be transformed by equations, as if
the basis for objectivity, yet not accounting for this in logic itself (T)
beyond the level of the [signage], such that pattern matching of signs is
believed of direct equivalence with truth itself, thus 1=1 is truth, yet
not taking into account what this potentially represents, in its truth

and perhaps this is the issue with language and observation as a context
for the mathematic, and how internal processing of a person is
externalized  and thus ungrounded views and beliefs can be made structural
and equated with [signs] via shared assumptions and viewpoints, that
because they are shared and agreed upon, are themselves believed to be
true. binary logic and ideology are what allows this perception as a
default condition, yet it can be and likely is ungrounded and based within
relativism, automatically, or in other words, occupies a framework in
pseudo-truth that continually is expanded upon via endless viewpoints that
together in their inaction with other such views, even as agreed upon and
confirmed as shared observation, tends towards nothingness (0) as a
perspective instead of towards truth (1)


     [code] ---> (signs/symbols)


thus it is to consider the code in terms of this issue of signage and of
boundaries, as it involves interpretation beyond these, to what they are
referencing, where their truth can be accounted for, in its accuracy as a
model or representation. ungrounded relativism has no need of this extra
step, and in this way mathematics can freely function as if writing..

thus the vital issue of error-checking and correction of code at the level
of signs used to represent ideas and concepts (mathematics, crypto models)
as this exists beyond equations and algorithms and into a realm of ideas,
how truth is evaluated, and the requirement of this in terms of security

all of this to establish and allow a conceptualization that follows, that
considers programming and code for cryptography in what may be perceived as
an off-limits consideration- that of typography.


--- crypto.typologic ---

in the same way that crypto is conceptualized to be related to
mathematics,  it is also proposed typography has connected structural
relevance to this crypto~graphic inquiry


     [crypto] ---> [mathematics]


in other words, in the linguistic context that also establish and define
approaches to cryptologic systems and their cryptographic conventions, it
is to consider the boundaries separating their interactions...


     [crypto] ---> [linguistics]


in other words, what if at the level of representation within code itself
there is a boundary or limit or threshold condition upheld by convention
that is itself arbitrary, a forced perspective even, and that it could be
holding back other options and perspectives for the questioning involved...

for instance, encryption that involves algebraic and geometric operations
and functions, as these may be bound to mathematical transformation of
signage, yet at a certain bounded condition, outside or upon the sign
itself or at its periphery, versus within it, in terms of its subsign
dynamics or subsign meaning


     [crypto] ---> [mathematics] --> [signage]


this approach is essentially to consider the relation between mathematics
and language, in a context of linguistics, whereby a calculus could exist
that bridges the distance between what is traditionally viewed as the
objective (A=A) and the subjective (A=B) as this corresponds with numbers
and letters, here in a context of signs and symbols or various patterning


     [crypto] ---> [math/linguistics] ---> [signage]


what if, for instance, the context for evaluation of data, pre-encryption,
was based in a combined A=A boundary established by *mathesis*, such that
the signs evaluated and transformed had this larger dimensionality involved
in the initial consideration, versus bounding of the linguistic within the
mathematic, potentially, as a set(subset) relation: mathematic(language)

in this way, equations could be limited, skewed, or bounded by a particular
relativistic interpretation that may assume accuracy due to shared views
yet be based upon or rely upon mistaken assumptions while believed true,
even while signs themselves may exist or persist beyond these boundaries
and be accounted for otherwise, yet not evaluated due to being off-limits


     [crypto] ---> [geometry/algebra] ---> [signage]


thus the consideration of signs and collections of signage within crypto
communications and messaging could exist in a calculative context, yet this
could involve both mathematic -and- linguistic computations, by default,
yet in terms of software evaluations may bias a mathematic approach to
establishing equations and algorithms in terms of numbers and not letters
due to convention and an inherited mindset for what parameters exist and
how computation takes place, at the level of pattern recognition of signs
yet not of the underlying truth these signs map to and reference, and in
this disconnection, the potential for a representational short-circuiting
between what is represented and calculated and what is actually real, true.
and thus ungrounded observation and computation, as this leads to relations
and crypto exchange that is insecure by design, versus a model that is
empirically grounded and error-corrected and constant under evaluation in
terms of its truth, including that of its content, the signs it involves


     [crypto] ---> [linguistic] ---> [signage]


it is in this conflicted condition that the linguistic evaluation of signs
can establish a foundation for truth via the de|con-struction of signs into
their more elemental armatures. and this evaluation can occur in terms of
various structures, such as nouns or verbs, or sentence tree diagrams, or
hundreds of other approaches to evaluate how language is structured and how
this maps into meaning and its verification of some perceived truth, though
this could still be at the level of pattern matching of signs, and not of
actual knowledge itself. such that a boundary may exist for mimicry-based
AI versus intuitive computations that are based on a comprehensive model of
grounded empirical knowledge, due to this gap and approach to computation,
say reliance on binary approaches and constraints to force viewpoint, etc


     [crypto] ---> linguistic  (algebraic/geometric)


so all of this background text is required to establish a given framework
to evaluate a pending alternative conceptualization that considers and
recontextualizes cryptology within a computational context of linguistics,
yet potentially in a territory beyond existing perspective that involves
subsign computations that are not mapped into traditional adjective/noun
and other existing models, yet can likewise potentially be interconnected
with them in various structural entanglements, as patterns collide, form,
and mutate based upon relations and dynamics of sign-al processing.

in other words: why not have algebraic and geometric functions and ~various
operations within the signage itself, instead of at a protected boundary
that limits such computation to a realm of numeracy, for instance. why not
run an algorithm that transforms or relates or transforms subsign units,
whether letters or words or sentence or paragraphs or all of these together
(in terms of nested superset-set-subset dynamics), such that the [signage]
is itself transformed, encrypted, versus a secondary wrapper or envelope or
container that "represents" this encryption of plain-text interior content

one approach to this, of a vast innumerable many, would be to evaluate the
typographic condition of code itself, as a basis for what is and what can
be ~programmed, in what terms and parameters, based on how tools function
and how the cryptologic and cryptographic situation is conceptualized...


     [crypto] ---> [typography] ---> [signage]


in other words the geometry of signs themselves, letters as with numbers
(though to focus on only the former as the primary example) have within
their patterning an implicit structure that graphically relates to other
alphanumeric characters, and thus the unit of measure, whether individual
letter or their combination into words, can become a basis for evaluating
these relational dynamics in terms of shared dimensionality, the shared
scaffolding of logic connection that pre-exists other evaluations else
informs it and can provide additional framework to map onto considerations
whereby letters and numbers themselves are entangled in their connectedness
and likeness and unlikeness as patterns, and this is inherently ~variable

such that a letter such as 'y' may relate to the letter 'v' in one context
whereas if rotated may relate to the letter 'h'. this transformation is
inherent in all letters and their combination. such that letters alone may
have properties, though so too words, via ambigrams or other evaluations.
yet the question goes further than this, and into a realm of abstraction
that is perhaps approximate to moving from a question of typography from an
interpretation of fonts and font styles, to that of abstract patterning
that may no longer be legible as a decipherable language, due to the
potential to break apart each letter into subsign units, say a capital
letter L into components: | _

and in this way, how might [code] and geometric calculation exist in such a
transmutational context of alphanumerics that break the model of literacy
or go beyond its existing boundary, into other realms of interpretation.
such that the ascender and descender, mean line, baseline and median, and
arms, spans,bowls, shoulders, counters, and terminals become graphic units
that are potentially computational, if they are standardized and aligned.
and this is what the HIOX model of alphanumerics opens up and allows yet it
could go to a much higher level of resolution given the details of language
and how these sign systems exist across all language, potentially, mapping
into a master symbol that reverse engineers all language in a single view

in this way, from [code] to [mastercode] if not many relativistic codes
into a shared framework of a grounded empirical model that is based within
and references the same evaluation of (paradoxical) truth in its pattern
matching. this is ancient stuff, the ideas involved formatting civilization


The Orphic Trilogy,  Cabaret, GiGi

Π Ω δ
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 24917 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131017/0c8a86e4/attachment-0001.txt>