Re: RSA moduli sizes

pubkeybreaker wrote:
On Mar 30, 11:30 am, Paulo Marques <pmarq...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
pubkeybreaker wrote:

You seem to give an higher importance to names than you do to the
underlying concepts...

Not to names. To DEFINITIONS.

Maybe when you get a clue, you will understand this.

I wonder why I bother.

OK, so you dismissed my questions and resorted to name-calling. Nice.

If you don't want to "bother" then you shouldn't write insulting posts
to usenet.

"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make
him think".

I realize that you're an expert in RSA, but it seems you're just being
unnecessarily stubborn about this (and a little offensive too, I might add).

If "bit string" and "integer" fit your mental model and allow you to
better understand how things work as a mathematician, that's fine.

But to call my explanation "wrong" and "mostly gibberish" when in fact
it is a very clear description of the problem from a programmer's point
of view, is just uncalled for.

In fact, the proof that my explanation is easier to understand is that
you had already replied twice and the OP still hadn't figured out what
the problem was until I posted my explanation.

If you can't see this, you're just being difficult...

--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

"To know recursion, you must first know recursion."
.

Quantcast