Re: Dilating Key Encryptions.

On Nov 17, 7:36 am, adacrypt <austin.oby...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This cryptography is very difficult to understand and impossible to
prove.  It is possible however to validate the claims being made by
using a special computer program that I have written to check every
one of the the 95^2 x 14250 (128606250) combinations of plaintext, key
and modulus that are used in the demonstration program going public
soon as free software under the GNU General Public License.  That
validation has been done and everything if fine.

The more discerning cryptographer will see the basis of this algorithm
fairly quickly but I’m not saying anything more, to do so would be to
only open another tiresome can of argumentative worms by ill equipped

This is going to be the last piece of crypto research from me, I am
not going down any more unexplored avenues looking for ciphers.  My
dilating key and vector cryptography, both in SMD is a fairly sizable
contribution and is enough for one person.

I want to labour the point here that the success of these two (I
believe they are both here to stay) is in steering well clear of the
beautiful number system that I maintain is totally unsuited to
cryptography and instead going down a seemingly bizarre private path
of customised number lines.  Anybody who ever uses raw data from the
universal number line as the encryption data of a cipher is doomed to
hiding that fact from cryptanalysts for ever more (and they will
pursue you relentlessly until they crack your ciphertext) so what has
to be done is to customise a number line specially to suit
cryptography.  I have done that by a) in vector cryptography using a
directed number line that has a unique vector equation and b) in this
latest cryptography of “dilating key” a line that has widely varying
periodicity.  Both methods are geared to foil cryptanalysis.

It is not because I don’t know any number theory (people have kindly
offered to teach me – but no thanks ) it is just that I am convinced
that this is the only thing that will ever completely foil
cryptanalysis.  I also think that combining the latter with human
intervention i.e. by the entities using synchronised mutual databases
and providing mathematically impossible-to-deduce keys by calling them
sequentially from the scrambled arrays of their databases, is the
better way forward.

I have propounded rules for this system of SMD (synchronised mutual
databases) that are insurmountable by cryptanalysis.  I have said
recently that SMD makes possible much simpler, almost benign
algorithms but I must confess also that I don’t know of any and maybe
it is naïve for me to think that but my deep-down gut feeling is that
there are more algorithms still out there for the finding by suitably
motivated researchers (not just by mouse-clicking around links to
other peoples theories) .

The special computer program for testing huge domains that I mentioned
above is on offer to anybody who wants to contact me.

- adacrypt

This link may be of interest to some readers - it shows the
application to a language in Unicode as an example

- adacrypt