Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: WTShaw <lurens1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
On May 31, 6:49 am, David Eather <eat...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The reference to primes was intended as an example of the properties of
numbers that don't change regardless of the number system used. It has
nothing to do (specifically) with cryptography. Hence, it is more likely
to provoke new thoughts in that area of number representations.
If you mention a prime like 13...that's in base 10, or is there a
presumption here that you are equating primes to pi status?
You have a narrow view that forgets computers are the slaves and not
Sci.crypt is (almost) entirely about computer cryptography. In this
case, changing representations of numbers is cryptographically
pointless, providing only the illusion of secure complexity, but with no
real substance.
the masters. Using characters makes it much easier to build things,
modules of content which don't always conveniently reduce to bits. One
of the great logical abuses is binary thinking, this or that and
nothing else. Mathematics and philosophers agree.
I don't think sci.crypt is supposed to be about selling watches per se
either.
Theory has every thing to do with cryptography and science has
everything to do with exploring and testing hypotheses. It is up to
you to disprove what you say in insecure and not to unscientifically
define away reality.
Your stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off mentality gives you the option
of a clear exit if you can' stand open discussion.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: David Eather
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: earlcolby . pottinger
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- References:
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: earlcolby . pottinger
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: David Eather
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: WTShaw
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- From: David Eather
- Re: Breaking LFSR.
- Prev by Date: Re: Breaking LFSR.
- Next by Date: Re: Breaking LFSR.
- Previous by thread: Re: Breaking LFSR.
- Next by thread: Re: Breaking LFSR.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|