Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: Jeff Dege <jdege@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 20:05:10 -0500
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:17:56 -0700, AdaCrypt wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:20 pm, Jeff Dege <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Essentially it means using a vector analogue (one of an infinite set)
After all this time, I am still at a loss as to
1: how your system actually works, and
2: why you believe that a system involving discrete numbers in multiple
dimensions is somehow more complex than a system involving discrete
numbers in a single dimension.
to replace the (very constrained)scalar representation of ASCII and
thus enable vector methods to be used on that scalar so as to perform
the encryption transformation instead of the very transparent methods
of scalar-number-theoretic methods.
You're still dealing with discrete numbers, not continuous. And discrete
numbers are either countable or countably infinite, regardless of the
number of dimensions. That is, they can all be mapped one-to-one to the
set of integers, regardless of whether you express them as fractions,
coordinates in a 11-dimensional vector space, or whatever.
So why do you imagine that there's some fundamental difference between
working in multiple dimensions versus working in one?
--
if 2 + 2 == 5 then 5 == 4
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- References:
- The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: Jeff Dege
- Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- From: AdaCrypt
- The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- Prev by Date: Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- Next by Date: Re: To the motherfucker whos bots flooding here
- Previous by thread: Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- Next by thread: Re: The Simplicity of it - Adacrypt
- Index(es):