1993-09-20 - Re: Definition of “Zero Knowledge”

Header Data

From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bf453ebe656283098133f19b21a0868d9566c56b0daf4b9d960e060cb2404097
Message ID: <9309200038.AA04119@netcom.netcom.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-20 00:40:55 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 17:40:55 PDT

Raw message

From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 17:40:55 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Definition of "Zero Knowledge"
Message-ID: <9309200038.AA04119@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) said:
>Got a good reference for ZPT? Something that the mathematically
>inclined, who wants just the facts, all the facts, and none of
>the BS that passes for explanations and which usually obscures
>more than it clarifies?

In the current context, the best reference that I know of is to
the methodology of Goedel's Theorem rather than to ZPT; it has each
of the properties that I mentioned except for the ZPT operations,
which can be added in a conceptually straightforward way. The most
readable in depth treatment of that that I know of is "Goedel's Proof"
by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman, c. 1958 and still in print as
a cheap paperback.

If someone has good ZPT references that would be interesting too; I've
lost the stuff I used to have on that.