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

David Taylor wrote:
On 2007-01-09, Jean-François Michaud <cometaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

If logic is too restrictive, feel free to go discuss your opinion
with someone else.

You're posting on the thread *I* started. I didn't come looking for
you! What kind of updside down thought process is that?!?!

Things are not either black or white as you seem to think,

Unbreakable is unbreakable. There is no "more unbreakable", as you seem
to think.

of grey in between. Because I don't agree to the same thing you agree
to in exactly the same way doesn't mean I disagree with you.

But I do disagree with you. And you do disagree with me.


In this
particular case, I completely agree, BUT

... you don't. As you go on to prove by directly contradicting the
statement you claim to "completely agree" with:

So you're actually able to get in touch with my thoughts to determine
that I don't agree with you while I, on the other hand, honestly insist
that I do agree with you but that I perceive something you don't even
want to consider?!?!

Give this guy a medal somebody!

You are following the very straight Aristotelian line indeed.

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.

I have considered it as completely as it is possible to consider such
an ill-considered scheme. Your statements are bordering on meaningless.

You haven't considered anything. You are refusing the idea from the get
go that there might be a 'degree-of-complexity' underlying the
'unbreakability' idea.

Jean-Francois Michaud


Relevant Pages