# Re: Randomness is the Tail - Not the Dog.

*From*: austin.obyrne@xxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 05:28:02 -0800 (PST)

On Nov 4, 5:40 pm, amzoti <amz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 4, 3:38 am, austin.oby...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Randomness – a Transient Thing.

Random is a transient thing that is specific to one particular

circumstance called the experiment. It lasts for the duration of this

experiment only and the data then reverts to being simply data except

for any other experiment it may pass later. It is not in general, a

global property of a system like say data as prime numbers that are

unconditionally prime for all time. The property of random is a

conditional one that is indeed true only by having its boxes ticked in

a particular experiment. That of course may not be the sole object of

the experiment which will most likely have a quite different target.

Saying that data is random is quite wrong without specifying the

experiment that it relates to. It’s like saying that something is

record-breaking without specifying the record. The writer sees random

as a ‘lagging’ property in so far as it follows the experiment and can

only be ascribed to the data after the event. The experiment

validates the data being random although the steps to make it random

must come from the user beforehand.

It is not possible to create random data (despite what the handbooks

say) and keep it handy for general use on the back of its being random

at all times when this is not yet proved. I repeat it is subjective

to the eventual use.

There seems to be a mystique about the subject that suggests it will

take its place in mathematics some day and be fully vindicated by a

host of theorems and axioms that will enable proofs to be stated on a

par with modern number theory. The writer hesitates to decry that

possibility but at the present time it does not seem likely it will

happen in scalar mathematics.

History has it that Pythagoras had one of his students executed by

drowning for postulating the existence of irrational numbers – may be

I’m next with regard to random theory and number theory becoming

partners.

The Boxes to be ticked:

1)The data is a string that has no rule – if it has rule it is a

sequence and cannot be random (despite what the handbooks say about

random sequences). These are contradictory terms.

2) There must be equal probability between the elements of data with

regard to being correctly mapped by whatever the salient quest of the

experiment is. Equal probability means zero certainty and an

adversary (assuming it is a hostile experiment) can only guess that

the outcome is any one of a vast possibility field that cannot be

verified even when the outcome is a de facto right one.

The ideal situation in cryptography is one in which some fortuitous

coincidence precludes all methodology that an adversary might use –

like the use of alphanumeric data as the data type for the cipher text

in the one-time pad type of cipher being prepared by the writer.

Subterfuge by scrambling while collecting data and then calling it

random like “ If I ask 100 people to verbalize the first integer that

comes into their heads “ or “the number of times a pidgeon pecks at

the ground “ or the “number of splurges of radiation from a piece of

granite in a given time does not produce randomness. These ploys are

useful in making sure that the collection of data is spontaneous,

impromptu and unrehearsed and that it will not go into an experiment

with some glaring baggage called visible bias (say) that could be

developed by an adversary into structure. They do not on their own

provide random data as a result of such a scheme. This has confused a

lot of readers.

Dat + Structure = Information

No structure no give-away information

The foregoing under analysis.

To get to the point, scalars as numbers or scalars as letters is

totally unsuitable as data for encryption work at least, if not in

fact for any and all use of randomness as a devious ploy. The earlier

foregoing remarks are intended as rhetoric more than accusation but it

is necessary in the writers view that it be generally realized that

the current cryptography that is based on numbers will never become

strong and a change of course is essential now and quickly.

The writer is developing the first implementation of an ASCII

modulated OTP cipher that is truly ground breaking as Theoretically

Unbreakable cryptography but this is only a lucky fallout of computer

science and a data structure called an 'enumeration type' in modern

programming languages.

It is not mathematical to depend on something fortuitous like this

and indeed something better as data is to hand that could elevate

randomness into that state where it has respectable rights as theorems

and proof comparable to number theory. These claims of course can

guarantee the cryptography that this data type then underpins as

ciphers.

It is necessary to “Up” the entire ball-game by an additional

dimension from number lines in two dimensions to three-dimensional

space. The data of three-dimensional space is automatically random at

all times even for one-off elements that are stand alone operands and

not even in a string. The irony of this fact is that randomness is

superseded by the one-way function that is available in vector data

methods and may not even be required. The whole of space is a random

number domain.

This is something that simply has got to come into vogue in time but

it needs a change of attitude all round by the establishment now. It

requires an effort that may not be within the ken of pure

mathematicians. A radical change is needed now even to hopping the

ball in a different court such as Applied Mathematics and Engineering.

Cryptographers will simply have to learn the methodology of Vector

Methods in applied mathematics and apply it to cryptography. The

result will be revolutionary and indeed raise randomness in

cryptography to a very acceptable branch of applied mathematics that

has its very own laws and proofs. It is waiting to be done – Adacrypt..

PS Think about it – any integer of the infinite set that exists may be

assigned to any one of an infinite set of points in space instead of

sitting on a single number line that has arbitrary direction as it

does in current cryptographer. There is simply no argument against a

change to this vastly greater domain of data that has intrinsic

randomness due to being a set of non-parallel vectors.http://www.adacrypt.com

General Vector cryptography and in particular “A New Approach to

Cryptography”.

Have you read this paper and used this code to test anything you have

done?

http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~simardr/testu01/tu01.html

It includes results for some crypto rng's.

Enjoy ~W- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have you read this paper and used this code to test anything you haveI wouldn't touch rngs of any origin with a barge pole.

done?

The Vector Ciphers in my portfolio are mathematical provable and have

been tested only on messages to myself - They are on offer for

external beta testing by anyone - about six of them.

I am working on a " ASCII Modulated OTP" at present and that will be

up for beta testing also fairly soon - a few weeks.

If any one is interested in either of these then let know and I will

forward the necessaries.

I will read that article on the link later - Many Thanks - Austin O'

Byrne

.

**References**:**Randomness is the Tail - Not the Dog.***From:*austin . obyrne

**Re: Randomness is the Tail - Not the Dog.***From:*amzoti

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Fairly exchanging factorizations** - Next by Date:
**Re: filter-type encryption program for Unix** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Randomness is the Tail - Not the Dog.** - Next by thread:
**Re: Randomness is the Tail - Not the Dog.** - Index(es):