Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.crypt > #49977 > unrolled thread
| Started by | austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-09-17 09:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-09-18 15:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 55 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.crypt
Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 09:07 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Leo <usenet@gkbrk.com> - 2021-09-17 16:17 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-17 17:34 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 02:28 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 09:36 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 09:14 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-09-24 15:14 -0500
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-24 21:57 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-17 17:23 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 18:44 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 10:11 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 19:32 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-17 18:43 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 11:04 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 20:14 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 11:35 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 20:49 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 21:30 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 22:44 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 13:55 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> - 2021-09-24 15:33 -0500
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-17 20:42 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 22:25 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 22:56 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-17 23:11 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 23:53 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> - 2021-09-18 00:16 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 00:12 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 01:56 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 10:09 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 02:25 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-17 20:57 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 23:03 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 22:47 +0200
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-17 20:46 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 13:56 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 02:41 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 10:55 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 03:34 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-18 12:26 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 14:02 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 06:17 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 14:28 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 14:51 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-18 16:20 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-09-18 16:18 +0000
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 06:24 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 14:31 +0100
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> - 2021-09-18 06:44 -0700
Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2021-09-18 15:20 +0100
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 22:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2un2$k30$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49996 |
On 17.09.21 22:39, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: [...] >> >> Yes, there is. If you want to express a k digit number with n digits >> and n > k > 0 , you have to fill up the left n-k digits with zeros. >> There is no other way to express 7 as a 3-digit-number than 007. > > Sorry for butting in, but what about: Why sorry? Good to see you. > > 124 = 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 That is indeed a way to represent 7 as a 3 digit number. But first, that is no decimal expression and second, if you use this method, the biggest 3-digit-number you can represent is 999 = 9+9+9 = 27. That's not very efficient amiright? > > ;^) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 13:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2vbh$rlr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49997 |
On 9/17/2021 1:44 PM, Max wrote: > On 17.09.21 22:39, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > [...] >>> >>> Yes, there is. If you want to express a k digit number with n digits >>> and n > k > 0 , you have to fill up the left n-k digits with zeros. >>> There is no other way to express 7 as a 3-digit-number than 007. >> >> Sorry for butting in, but what about: > > Why sorry? Good to see you. I am trying to get over my old habit of butting in and including some reference to my own work. This pisses some people off on here. Hijack!? >> 124 = 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 > > That is indeed a way to represent 7 as a 3 digit number. But first, that > is no decimal expression and second, if you use this method, the biggest > 3-digit-number you can represent is 999 = 9+9+9 = 27. That's not very > efficient amiright? Not efficient at all. Its just a way, so to speak. Perhaps, 2*3+1, or 1*8-1, na still to verbose, and not very efficient. Actually, this is making me think about partitions by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory) [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 711 Spooky Mart <711@spooky.mart> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-24 15:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <silckc$1tr1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49996 |
On 9/17/21 3:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > Sorry for butting in, but what about: > > 124 = 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 > > ;^) > Meesa wuvz meesum Pythagorean maffz. We can claim any book contains secret codes that say anything we want with tricks like this. We can also claim that something has been encoded securely when in reality, it hasn't. I glimpse how grifters prey on our self-deceptions to catch us in theirs. This principle has some application to compromising data security. It's better for Eve if we are grifting ourselves. -- ███████████████████████████████████ █░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░███ █░░███████░░█░░████░░███░░████░░███ [chan] 711 █░░░░░░░██░░█░░░░██░░███░░░░██░░███ spooky mart ██████░░██░░███░░██░░█████░░██░░███ always open ██████░░██░░███░░██░░█████░░██░░███ stay spooky ██████░░██░░█░░░░██░░░░█░░░░██░░░░█ https://bitmessage.org ██████░░██░░█░░██████░░█░░██████░░█ ██████░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█ ███████████████████████████████████
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 20:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2r3s$iq6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49991 |
On 17/09/2021 20:09, austin obyrne wrote: > On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 19:49:04 UTC+1, Max wrote: >> On 17.09.21 20:35, austin obyrne wrote: >>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 19:15:02 UTC+1, Max wrote: >>>> On 17.09.21 20:04, austin obyrne wrote: >>>>> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 18:32:18 UTC+1, Max wrote: >>>>>> On 17.09.21 19:11, austin obyrne wrote: >>>>>> [..] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I see I don't think combinatorics is valid as a method in vector cryptography >>>>>>> .- OK in scalar data that have magnitude but not with vectors ( that have direction as well as magnitude). >>>>>> You don't use "directions". They are, at best, an "emergent property" of >>>>>> your vectors. Your vectors are sufficiently defined by their x, y and >>>>>> z-values. As these values are integers, I can easily map them / encode >>>>>> them to a single integer (143, 752, 12) simply becomes 143752012. >>>>>> >>>>>> Still wondering, where do the 9! come from? I think, this is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AOB >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Max >>>>> Each column (of the 7) can be filled in 9! ways i.e. nine factorial ways. >>>>> (The possibility space must consider filling all 9 places in every possible way) >>>>> There are 7 'columns' => 9^7 >>>>> There are 3 sets of 7 integers as coefficients of i, j, k => (9!^7) ^3 = 9! ^ 21 >>>>> in words - nine factorial to the power of twenty one. >>>> I asked, where the 9! comes from, not the 21. Why do you think, each >>>> column can be filled in 9! ways? >>>> If we're talking digits, then each spot in a 7-digit-number can be >>>> filled in 10 ways. So, there are 10^7 possible combinations. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> AOB >>>>> >>>> So, there are 10^7 possible combinations. >>> Zero (0) doesn't count anywhere n the first column= > 9 only ways >> Yes, it does. Or do you only allow for vector coefficients greater or >> equal to 100? 7 would be 007. Same with all the following digits. 700 is >> a valid value, too. >>> - Doesn't happen in my work but you may have a point to argue in other cases >>> .- Better settle for 9 all round - hence 9! - agreed ? >> No. Even if there were 9 possible values per digit, that would be >> 9*9*9*...*9 aka 9^n. 9! would be 9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1, only applicable, if >> each digit in a 9-digit-number would have to be unique and also not >> allowed to be 0. >> >> >>> >>> AOB >>> > This is beyond argument No, because you're wrong. > - it is a standard result => n places can be filled in n! ways - I've been using this on trust for many years Instead of taking it on trust, think about it. n! is the number of unique ways you can order n *distinct* objects. The first object can be any of n, the next can't be the one you already picked, so it can be any of (n-1), the next any of (n-2), all the way down to 1 for the nth object. That's where the factorial comes from. But in a vector like 221 319 207 the objects are not unique. 1 appears twice and 2 appears 3 times. If any digit can appear in any place, then there are n (ten) possible choices for each place, thus 10^9 ways of arranging ten digits. You can ditch a bunch for banning leading 0s if you like but it's still way more than 9! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 22:25 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2tjd$1n0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #49993 |
On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> > Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? BtW, if you haven't, you might enjoy the article "What to do when the trisector comes" that I linked a while ago. Cheers, Max
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 22:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2vdo$9c7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49994 |
Op 17-9-2021 om 22:25 schreef Max: > On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <snip> >> > > Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? > > BtW, if you haven't, you might enjoy the article "What to do when the > trisector comes" that I linked a while ago. > I read it, and enjoyed it. The conclusions of how to deal with the trisectors was interesting because of the parallels with the cryptographers in this group; if you point out an error/flaw, they will come back with "fixes" until it gets to complicated to find flaws (in your spare time) and they'll think they "won". Cheers, Ozz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 23:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si309c$1815$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #50004 |
On 17.09.21 22:56, wizzofozz wrote: > Op 17-9-2021 om 22:25 schreef Max: >> On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> <snip> >>> >> >> Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? >> >> BtW, if you haven't, you might enjoy the article "What to do when the >> trisector comes" that I linked a while ago. >> > > I read it, and enjoyed it. > The conclusions of how to deal with the trisectors was interesting > because of the parallels with the cryptographers in this group; if you > point out an error/flaw, they will come back with "fixes" until it gets > to complicated to find flaws (in your spare time) and they'll think they > "won". Exactly! I also liked his solutions. If only I were able to stick to it... > > Cheers, > Ozz >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 23:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si32p9$9p1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50008 |
Op 17-9-2021 om 23:11 schreef Max: > On 17.09.21 22:56, wizzofozz wrote: >> Op 17-9-2021 om 22:25 schreef Max: >>> On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> >>> >>> Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? >>> >>> BtW, if you haven't, you might enjoy the article "What to do when the >>> trisector comes" that I linked a while ago. >>> >> >> I read it, and enjoyed it. >> The conclusions of how to deal with the trisectors was interesting >> because of the parallels with the cryptographers in this group; if you >> point out an error/flaw, they will come back with "fixes" until it >> gets to complicated to find flaws (in your spare time) and they'll >> think they "won". > > Exactly! I also liked his solutions. If only I were able to stick to it... > Yes, and by the way; no offense to Chris, Daniel etc. Nothing wrong with discussing ideas as long as it is a two way interaction ;-) Ozz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-18 00:16 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si3441$npt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #50009 |
On 17.09.21 23:53, wizzofozz wrote: > Op 17-9-2021 om 23:11 schreef Max: >> On 17.09.21 22:56, wizzofozz wrote: >>> Op 17-9-2021 om 22:25 schreef Max: >>>> On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? >>>> >>>> BtW, if you haven't, you might enjoy the article "What to do when >>>> the trisector comes" that I linked a while ago. >>>> >>> >>> I read it, and enjoyed it. >>> The conclusions of how to deal with the trisectors was interesting >>> because of the parallels with the cryptographers in this group; if >>> you point out an error/flaw, they will come back with "fixes" until >>> it gets to complicated to find flaws (in your spare time) and they'll >>> think they "won". >> >> Exactly! I also liked his solutions. If only I were able to stick to >> it... >> > Yes, and by the way; no offense to Chris, Daniel etc. Nothing wrong with > discussing ideas as long as it is a two way interaction ;-) Absolutely! I enjoy everybody who keeps this newsgroup going. I also like talking with Austin. He has stamina. It's just frustrating sometimes to get stuck with him. > > Ozz > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-18 00:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <21199de0-3de9-477d-9494-8858972d2c71n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50010 |
On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 23:16:36 UTC+1, Max wrote: > On 17.09.21 23:53, wizzofozz wrote: > > Op 17-9-2021 om 23:11 schreef Max: > >> On 17.09.21 22:56, wizzofozz wrote: > >>> Op 17-9-2021 om 22:25 schreef Max: > >>>> On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >>>> <snip> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? > >>>> > >>>> BtW, if you haven't, you might enjoy the article "What to do when > >>>> the trisector comes" that I linked a while ago. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I read it, and enjoyed it. > >>> The conclusions of how to deal with the trisectors was interesting > >>> because of the parallels with the cryptographers in this group; if > >>> you point out an error/flaw, they will come back with "fixes" until > >>> it gets to complicated to find flaws (in your spare time) and they'll > >>> think they "won". > >> > >> Exactly! I also liked his solutions. If only I were able to stick to > >> it... > >> > > Yes, and by the way; no offense to Chris, Daniel etc. Nothing wrong with > > discussing ideas as long as it is a two way interaction ;-) > Absolutely! I enjoy everybody who keeps this newsgroup going. I also > like talking with Austin. He has stamina. It's just frustrating > sometimes to get stuck with him. > > > > > Ozz > > > > Hi Max, Good of you to say that but nothing of what I say has been concocted - it is all very well known mathematics - I have merely applied it to cryptography. AOB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-18 01:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <d72b2a08-2ef2-4764-87f1-68e0860af4cen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50013 |
On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 08:12:36 UTC+1, austin obyrne wrote: > Good of you to say that but nothing of what I say has been concocted > - it is all very well known mathematics - I have merely applied it to cryptography. The "vector factoring" is concocted. As for the well-known mathematics, you make very many errors, and you seldom correct them. M --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-18 10:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si4ac4$o8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50015 |
On 18/09/2021 09:56, MM wrote: > On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 08:12:36 UTC+1, austin obyrne wrote: >> Good of you to say that but nothing of what I say has been concocted >> - it is all very well known mathematics - I have merely applied it to cryptography. > > The "vector factoring" is concocted. Vector factorisation has been around for at least half a century. See, for example, William H. Lawton's and Edward A. Sylvestre's 1971 article, "Self modeling curve resolution", in Technometrics (an engineering statistics journal). -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MM <mrvmurray@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-18 02:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <418a48ba-e085-4973-854e-ca1da8b2aaean@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #50016 |
On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 10:09:28 UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 18/09/2021 09:56, MM wrote: > > On Saturday, 18 September 2021 at 08:12:36 UTC+1, austin obyrne wrote: > >> Good of you to say that but nothing of what I say has been concocted > >> - it is all very well known mathematics - I have merely applied it to cryptography. > > > > The "vector factoring" is concocted. > Vector factorisation has been around for at least half a century. See, > for example, William H. Lawton's and Edward A. Sylvestre's 1971 article, > "Self modeling curve resolution", in Technometrics (an engineering > statistics journal). Hmm. I expect AOB to not understand that paper at all. It will take me some time to digest it, and I've done some simliar work myself (fitting multiple functions to a single data set). M --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 20:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2vfj$srl$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49994 |
Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> wrote: > On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <snip> >> > > Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? No, you have just run up against Austin's missunderstanding of basic math and statistics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 23:03 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2vrd$hh7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50006 |
Op 17-9-2021 om 22:57 schreef Rich: > Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> wrote: >> On 17.09.21 21:42, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> <snip> >>> >> >> Is it just me or has the quality of Friday evenings gone down? > > No, you have just run up against Austin's missunderstanding of basic > math and statistics. > And it's also "Call of Duty Vanguard open beta early access" weekend. :-) Ozz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wizzofozz <oxxxxxxxxxxxs@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 22:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2uts$v95$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49991 |
Op 17-9-2021 om 21:09 schreef austin obyrne: >>> > This is beyond argument - it is a standard result => n places can be filled in n! ways - I've been using this on trust for many years > Max and Richard already answered this, but you can experiment with small numbers. According to you, 1 place can be filled in 1! (=1) ways. But when using digits, I can fill it in 10 ways, namely 0,1,2,3,4, .. ,9. If I use hexdigits, I can fill it in 16 ways: 0,1,2,3,..,9,a,b,..,f. According to you, 2 places can be filled 2! (=2) ways. But when using digits, I can fill it in 100 ways, namely 00,01,02,03,04, ..,10,11,12, .. ,99. If I use hexdigits, I can fill it in 256 ways: 00,01,02,03,..,09,0a,0b,..,0f,10,11,..,1a,..,1f,..,ff. So, the number of ways you can fill n places is not only dependent on how many places you have to fill, but also the number of symbols you can use to fill them with. So, if you have n places and m items, then with repetition: m**n without repetition: m!/(m-n)! As an example for the "without repetition" formula as, with say 10 digits and 3 places to fill, 10*9*8 == 10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1/7*6*5*4*3*2*1 == 10!/7! == 10!/(10-3)! If the order doesn't matter you can divide once more by 3! (because you have that many orderings of the 3 choosen items) in the above example, so m!/(n!(m-n)!). Ozz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 20:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2va0$srl$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49987 |
Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> wrote: > On 17.09.21 20:04, austin obyrne wrote: >> On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 18:32:18 UTC+1, Max wrote: >>> On 17.09.21 19:11, austin obyrne wrote: >>> [..] >>>> >>> Still wondering, where do the 9! come from? I think, this is wrong. >> >> Each column (of the 7) can be filled in 9! ways i.e. nine >> factorial ways. (The possibility space must consider filling all 9 >> places in every possible way) >> There are 7 'columns' => 9^7 >> There are 3 sets of 7 integers as coefficients of i, j, k => (9!^7) >> ^3 = 9! ^ 21 in words - nine factorial to the power of twenty one. > > I asked, where the 9! comes from, not the 21. Why do you think, > each column can be filled in 9! ways? > If we're talking digits, then each spot in a 7-digit-number can be > filled in 10 ways. So, there are 10^7 possible combinations. Austin does not understand basic math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | austin obyrne <ao402468@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 11:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <45268087-7c22-467b-b750-0a7ebd3cbcecn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49984 |
On Friday, 17 September 2021 at 18:32:18 UTC+1, Max wrote: > On 17.09.21 19:11, austin obyrne wrote: > [..] > > > > As I see I don't think combinatorics is valid as a method in vector cryptography > > .- OK in scalar data that have magnitude but not with vectors ( that have direction as well as magnitude). > You don't use "directions". They are, at best, an "emergent property" of > your vectors. Your vectors are sufficiently defined by their x, y and > z-values. As these values are integers, I can easily map them / encode > them to a single integer (143, 752, 12) simply becomes 143752012. > > Still wondering, where do the 9! come from? I think, this is wrong. > > > > > > AOB > > > > Cheers, > > Max >You don't use "directions". They are, at best, an "emergent property" of >your vectors. Your vectors are sufficiently defined by their x, y and > z-values. As these values are integers, I can easily map them / encode > them to a single integer (143, 752, 12) simply becomes 143752012. Doesn't gel ! This doesn't apply to physical vectors that represents physical quantities like velocity and displacement. You might be confusing it with ' n-tuples ' that don't have direction per se that can be manipilated in combinatrics.- your reference to an 'emergent proprty' is normal in that case. AOB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 20:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2v26$srl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49984 |
Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> wrote: > On 17.09.21 19:11, austin obyrne wrote: > [..] >> >> As I see I don't think combinatorics is valid as a method in vector >> cryptography .- OK in scalar data that have magnitude but not with >> vectors ( that have direction as well as magnitude). > > You don't use "directions". They are, at best, an "emergent > property" of your vectors. Your vectors are sufficiently defined by > their x, y and z-values. As these values are integers, I can easily > map them / encode them to a single integer (143, 752, 12) simply > becomes 143752012. > > Still wondering, where do the 9! come from? I think, this is wrong. Austin really just has a scalar algorithm. He just works with groups of three scalar numbers. The only "vector" is within his own mind because a three axis point can be considered to define the "tip" of a vector if one presumes some starting point (such as his common 'universal origin' start of 0,0,0). Reality is he simply has scalar points, and performs scalar operations on the scalar points, to produce scalar outputs. Vectors are just a figment of his imagination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-17 20:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Triangulation Cryptography - Statistical Cryptanalysis Attack. |
| Message-ID | <si2urq$srl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49982 |
Max <maxturv26@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 17.09.21 18:07, austin obyrne wrote:
>> Given that the ciphertext is comprised of groups of 3 x seven-digit
>> integers. It follows that the sample space is of the order of (9
>> factorial)^21 in any attack. This is 362880^21- an enormous number
>> that can even be made emuch larger if needs be.
>
> 9 factorial? I'd like to see that math. Is there any point in your
> cipher where each number from 1 to 9 has to appear exactly once? I
> hope all values are independent from one another.
As with most things that Austin posts, his math is comically wrong.
So, now it is "seven digit integers". Well, "seven digit integers" can
represent 10,000,000 possible numbers.
Now, I switch to some "bc" work to do the math.
Three "seven digit" integers then are:
10000000*10000000*10000000*3
3000000000000000000000
Possible combinations.
Now, define a factorial function (this is direct from the bc manpage):
define f (x) {
if (x <= 1) return (1);
return (f(x-1) * x);
}
And then compute (9 factorial)^21:
f(9)^21
56888396215740878371932195299255658329404794388858314473940721862532\
2895127819048683463338098688000000000000000000000
Hmm, that number is significantly longer than the first. How much
longer (at this size, I'm just letting BC do integer arithmetic, with
numbers this big, no one cares if the answer has a decimal value)?
(f(9)^21)/(10000000*10000000*10000000*3)
18962798738580292790644065099751886109801598129619438157980240620844\
0965042606349561154446032896
So Austin's math is wrong by a factor of 189,627,987,385,802,927,906,\
440,650,997,518,861,098,015,981,296,194,381,579,802,406,208,440,965,\
042,606,349,561,154,446,032,896 times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.crypt
csiph-web