Re: Notice: My 2nd crypto book finished :-)

Tom St Denis a écrit :
mm wrote:
Strange. If I want a library that implements well
known constructs, I'd really want it written by
someone who cares about careful, correct, and
efficient programs, rather than by an abstract
mathematician who doesn't care that input might be
malformed, outside the proper range, or how long
it takes to come up with the answer.
But who did talk about "abstract mathematician?" Did I say such a thing?

I think Greg's point is despite the lack of advance degrees in
mathematics, a competent software library can still be constructed.
That it takes more than competence in one single area to be a well
rounded and respected individual.

I only say that a computer scientist who wants to work in the crypto
domain should have a minimal knowledge in maths. And that's totally
obvious. Look at any CS cursus (with a specialization in crypto) of any
university.

I'd say I have more than a minimal knowledge in math.

No. You have not.

I sure as heck
can talk circles around the average lay person and I have held my own
in the professional circuit. If you didn't have an agenda you'd be
able to see your bias and get over yourself.

Already forgotten the thread about quadratic fields? Here is what you
answered (to PubKeyBreaker):
>Mostly because it's so abstract all 14 people who know about it are too
>busy circle jerking themselves about how great they are [e.g. you] and
>failed to teach anyone else.

What do you believe? That this is teached at the end of a math cursus?
But this is basic. If you don't know that Q(sqrt(2)) is the quadratic
field containing all the elements of the form a + b*sqrt(2) with a,b
rational numbers, you cannot say "I have more than the minimal
knowledge".

Now, I'm not much of a mathematician myself, but
I'm a good coder and know one when I see one. Tom
writes good code.
I don't know if I am a good coder but I will never say that someone who
codes a Jacobi function (with big integer parameters) as a recursive
function is a good coder.

Why is it bad?

You mean, why using a recursive function that creates big integers on
each recursive call is not as good as using the non-recursive version
that is not longer to write and that minimizes the ressources used?
That's a good question.

How many times will it recurse?

At first glance, I would say about as much as a recursive GCD.

Do you suppose I
haven't fixed that because I haven't found a need to yet?

Why would I suppose so? You already answered this question a few months
ago: that's because this is academic. According to you this is academic
because it is presented this way in HAC, which is academic. This does
prove one thing, you believe that the description of an algorithm and
its possible implementations, that's the same.

Again, this boils down to your lack of experience working in the field.

It should be it.

LTM has a bunch of goals, least of all is a fast and memory stable
Jacobi function. I mean what good would that be if it took 8 minutes
to multiply a 64-bit number? There are areas I had to focus on
[including code readability, documentation and that book that goes with
the archive].

Maybe after you write as much as I do we can judge how flawless your
work is.

What does make you believe you wrote more code than I did? Ah, yes, "my
lack of experience in the field".

Well, we are talking about his work because he put it on the table. As
usual, each time someone nitpicks about his behaviour, he immediately
hides himself behind his work, "I contribute, I have millions of users",
etc. etc. What is curious is that he uses his work as a shield and he
is always surprised when his work get blows.

I accept patches, fixes, and comments from many people. The real
question is, why haven't you, with all your myriad of experience and
talent,

How can I have "myriad of experience" while "totally lacking of
experience in the field"?

contributed a patch to LTM that fixes this problem?

I think that most people who could help you have not at all the will
to do it. Guess why.

You're the only one who seems to think I'm a close minded individual
who doesn't accept help from others.

Huh? Stop to presume anywhat. Where did I say you don't accept the help
of others?

You also have not submitted any
patches yet. Odd...

See above.

I'll let Greg respond to that [if he choose to indulge you any
further...]

Indulge? All I hope is that he answers my last question.

mm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Notice: My 2nd crypto book finished :-)
    ... someone who cares about careful, correct, and ... But who did talk about "abstract mathematician?" ... I'm a good coder and know one when I see one. ... codes a Jacobi function as a recursive ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Karins Flier:
    ... who really cares what you say or think? ... nothing to do with him attending or not attending the gathering. ... Thanks Tom [whether you meant to ... Guess what you can do with your opinion of Sanity's or my behaviour? ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Magnesium handling
    ... "Who cares as long as I get mine?" ... >> Personally, I don't care if he copies the webpage word for word, as ... layout and wording of CCD's chemical offerings against ... >>>Tom C. ...
    (rec.pyrotechnics)
  • Re: Tippmann unveils propane-powered paintball marker
    ... in my pocket so to me that does not mean anything at all...you just THINK i ... but have a nice vacation tom and stop the anger... ... Who cares what paintball dick you were stroking yesterday ... and higher level tourney players are ...
    (rec.sport.paintball)
  • Re: How "rugged" is the Inspiron
    ... schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... > Tom, I will have to agree with you but do you really think he cares ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
Quantcast