From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 56a902aecd3779fbef430d6a19c90698e4232f3be80a3c8686e9e95009c2a4f8
Message ID: <9402081757.AA01579@ah.com>
Reply To: <9402080759.AA00803@ah.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-08 18:06:46 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:06:46 PST
From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 10:06:46 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Magic Money coins
In-Reply-To: <9402080759.AA00803@ah.com>
Message-ID: <9402081757.AA01579@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
In thinking about my own averaging technique for finding
near-identities, I realize it needs some modification.
Remember the example that 3 was a near-identity near n/2. Well so is
5, and 7, and -3, -5, -7, etc. Even though 3 (or -1) seems to be the
best of the near-inverses, any one whose action is sufficiently
bounded will do.
The new observation is that the candidates for near-inverses will be
clustered and not distributed flatly over the ring. There will also
be more than one cluster. So you've got two choices. First make a
histogram of the candidate choices and only average by clusters.
Secondly, one might also be able to transpose the clusters onto each
other and average them all. The inverse image of this transposition
may also yield more near-inverses.
I think that averaging can be made to work, but it's not obvious to me
exactly what the technique will be.
Eric
Return to February 1994
Return to “hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)”