Re: A Long Hard Dispassionate Look at Contemporary Cryptography. - adacrypt

On May 6, 6:16 am, AdaCrypt <austein.oby...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In principle it is unmatheamtical in my view to deliberate destroy the
fluency of numbers by adopting numbers that are so large that they
cannot be worked on by computers because of the integer overflow
problem that they will create as a deliberate act. - thanks -
adacrypt- Hide quoted text -


Is it unmathematical and destroying the fluency of numbers (whatever
the heck that might mean) when programs, as they should, do currency
calculations with integer arithmetic, which will overflow on
essentially all computers when presented with many real world currency
values?

Or does this "fluency" depend on the word size of the computer? So
that a 16-bit by 16- bit multiply is OK on an x86, but
"unmathematical" on a 6502, which has neither 16 bit operations, or
any sort of multiply primitive?

CPUs provide primitives, which clever programmers combine in various
ways to create useful software.

.

Loading