From: “Reply to: hahn@lds.loral.com” <HAHN@lds.loral.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e59b33e06af976a0b4dfef9bc40885fd655a57ba41ffd51483978b3af3a527bf
Message ID: <930820165108.47c@lds.loral.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-08-20 20:51:57 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 13:51:57 PDT
From: "Reply to: hahn@lds.loral.com" <HAHN@lds.loral.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 13:51:57 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: genetic algorithms for crypto analysis
Message-ID: <930820165108.47c@lds.loral.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
It has been noted in this thread that a good crypto algorithm would
require an attacker to locate a single spike in a problem space, rather
than having to climb a hill (which is, of course, much easier).
I recall reading (I think in Sci. Am.) that a theory under investigation
now as to why nature has sexual reproduction as part of its repertoire
is that this gives a solution-seeking population a better opportunity to
located spikey solutions.
From the point of view of genetic algorithms, sexual reproduction means
that each offspring must be generated from two members of the existing
population, each of which contributes half the information needed to
generate the offspring. In theory, this maintains a population that
is spread over a wider terrain, and is thus more likely to find the
spike.
I don't know if such a strategy would help at all in crypto analysis,
or whether any genetic algorithm programs currently in use employ this
strategy.
__
| (V) | "Tiger gotta hunt. Bird gotta fly.
| (^ (`> | Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.
| ((\\__/ ) | Tiger gotta sleep. Bird gotta land.
| (\\< ) der Nethahn | Man gotta tell himself he understand."
| \< ) |
| ( / | Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
| | |
| ^ |
Return to August 1993
Return to “szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo)”