Re: Good enough for crypto?
From: r.e.s. (r.s_at_XXmindspring.com)
Date: 12/04/03
- Next message: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Previous message: Cyber Vagrant: "Re: Formulae for Latin squares of size 2^n"
- In reply to: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Next in thread: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Reply: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 20:17:50 GMT
"Scott Wilber" wrote ...
>"r.e.s." wrote ...
>>"Scott Wilber" wrote ...
>>>"r.e.s." wrote ...
>>>>"Scott Wilber" wrote ...
>>>>>"r.e.s." wrote ...
>>>>>>"Scott Wilber" wrote ...
>>>>>>> The autocorrelation function of a non-deterministic sequence will
>>>>>>> always decrease with increasing order. The decrease will either be
>>>>>>> monotonic or the function will oscillate, and the amplitude of the
>>>>>>> oscillations will decrease monotonically. This is proved by proving
>>>>>>> the behavior of the generalized autocorrelation function of the
>>>>>>> random process, including its measurement device - something I will
>>>>>>> not try to show in this setting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, this theorem on non-deterministic
>>>>>>> sequences is original and has never been published before. But,
>>>>>>> its a big world and if anyone has seen this before, I would like to
>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>> (To Scott:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "theorem" isn't true, as this counterexample shows:
>>>>>> Y_i = a*X_0 + b*X_(i+1) (a,b <> 0) (i = 0, 1, 2, ...),
>>>>>> where X_0, X_1, X_2, ... are nondegenerate iid on {0,1}.
>>>>>> The autocorrelation function for the Y-sequence is
>>>>>> R(0) = 1, R(k)(k > 0) = 1/(1 + b**2/a**2) = constant.
>>>>>
>>>>> The theorem relates specifically and only to non-deterministic
>>>>> sequences as is clearly stated. No inference may be made from this
>>>>> concerning deterministic generators.
>>>>
>>>> Eh? The Y-sequence *is* non-deterministic.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps I missed the invention of algorithimic true random number
>>> generators. What is the source of entropy in this generator?
>>
>> Your snideness is uncalled for.
>> Do you understand what nondegenerate iid random variables are?
>
> If you thought my response was snide and you didn't like it, why do
> you think it is OK to reply in the same way?
I *didn't* reply the same way. Your reference to a sum of iid
random variables first as being deterministic, and then again
as being an "algorithmic TRNG", suggested you really didn't
understand what they are, so I asked -- directly.
> Your iid sequence is a mathematical abstraction. A real, physical
> generator, which is what I am referring to, does not spit out iid
> random variables. The theorem relates to either continuous numbers,
> or more typically to binary digits directly produced by a hardware
> true random number generator. The ACF of this real sequence of bits
^^^^
> can be fully described and hence its behavior over all orders.
You say "this" real sequence, but of course there is no specific
sequence of bits. An ACF relates to a *mathematical abstraction*
-- a probabilistic model for such sequences -- otherwise theorems
& proofs don't even pertain.
You stated a would-be theorem about the autocorrelation functions
of non-deterministic sequences, without otherwise qualifying those
sequences. The counter-example is to what you stated.
This is reminiscent of discussions that confuse a "theoretical" OTP
with its "realizations" in practice.
--r.e.s.
- Next message: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Previous message: Cyber Vagrant: "Re: Formulae for Latin squares of size 2^n"
- In reply to: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Next in thread: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Reply: Scott Wilber: "Re: Good enough for crypto?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|