Re: Help needed with a proof...
From: Joe Peschel (jpeschel_at_no.spam.org)
Date: 04/29/04
- Next message: Roger Schlafly: "Re: Best definition of cryptography"
- Previous message: mike3: "Re: Mysterious usenet spam"
- In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: Help needed with a proof..."
- Next in thread: David Wagner: "Re: Help needed with a proof..."
- Reply: David Wagner: "Re: Help needed with a proof..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:51:22 -0000
daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner) wrote in
news:c6rfs7$20db$1@agate.berkeley.edu:
> The language of the provable-security community
> is the accepted way to unambiguously define terms. I encourage you to
> use it. Plain English is too ambiguous and imprecise.
>
Is it? I suppose every field has its jargon, but I think if you fully
understand an idea, you should be able to explain it in plain English to
almost anyone. Didn't Einstein say as much, or was it Hawking?
J
-- __________________________________________ When will Bush come to his senses? Joe Peschel D.O.E. SysWorks http://members.aol.com/jpeschel/index.htm __________________________________________
- Next message: Roger Schlafly: "Re: Best definition of cryptography"
- Previous message: mike3: "Re: Mysterious usenet spam"
- In reply to: David Wagner: "Re: Help needed with a proof..."
- Next in thread: David Wagner: "Re: Help needed with a proof..."
- Reply: David Wagner: "Re: Help needed with a proof..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]