Re: A twist on OTP for an outstandingly secure channel?

Jean-François Michaud schrieb:
David Taylor wrote:
On 2007-01-08, Jean-François Michaud <cometaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joseph Ashwood wrote:
"Jean-François Michaud" <cometaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1168194101.627854.183090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Joseph Ashwood wrote:
"Jean-François Michaud" <cometaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1168152424.282238.67270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Am I missing anything?

Yes you are. You are missing that there are no "magnitudes beyond ...
'unbreakable'.
I would have to disagree. In this particular context, I perceive that
there is a degree of unbreakability.
We're not talking bullet-"proof" vests, unbreakable means quite simply
unbreakable, in particular it means indistinguishability.
I agree with you. I'm simply trying to point out that there I perceive
a 'DEGREE' of unbreakability.
Then clearly, you don't agree.

It's very difficult to discuss with a Aristotelian thinker. I'm afraid
I can't think in those terms anymore, it's too restrictive. Things are
not either black or white as you seem to think, there's a whole scale
of grey in between.
Aristotelian thinking has no problem with grey. However, each shade is
distinct from each other shade. THAT is aristotelian thinking.
However, black's black as per definition. And any other colour is
different from black.
No "grey" area in the rhetorical sense.
Or, to keep to indistinguishability either something is or it isn't.
There's black for you.
Once something is distinguishable you can go and talk about work effort
and define degrees of distinguishability by some arbitrary metrics but
the difference between OTP and everything else is the difference between
zero and non-zero.

If aristoteles is too restrictive for you then some (i.e. at least one) of
your thoughts are illogical and therefore wrong.

Now there's nothing wrong with being wrong, what's wrong is trying to
make it right by blaming aristoteles.

I can just see "faith based encryption" around the corner.

Because I don't agree to the same thing you agree
to in exactly the same way doesn't mean I disagree with you.
You are playing semantics. In normal discourse "agree" means
"accepting a statement as true".
Either you do or you don't. If you accept only part of a statement
then you no longer accept the statement.
If you really want to express this, please use "I partly agree"
next time.

In this
particular case, I completely agree, BUT I perceive a degree of
complexity (degree of 'unbreakability') that simply doesn't exit for a
standard OTP approach.

It's not impossible that I'm perceiving things
incorrectly, but before dismissing the approach completely, you need to
at LEAST consider it completely.
Given a stream cipher with a key of n bits, plus m bits detailing
how to find the message bits, where's the advantage over the standard
solution of just using a stream cipher with a key size of n+m bits?

Greetings!
Volker
--
For email replies, please substitute the obvious.
.

Relevant Pages