1994-06-17 - Re: Prime magnitude and keys…a ?

Header Data

From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
To: perry@imsi.com
Message Hash: 4e7631a2d8dd5a0ca84ddc3d5844fa333ebac46a90b4565871fd6f3234efda79
Message ID: <199406171905.OAA11151@zoom.bga.com>
Reply To: <9406171853.AA02690@snark.imsi.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-06-17 19:06:05 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:06:05 PDT

Raw message

From: Jim choate <ravage@bga.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 12:06:05 PDT
To: perry@imsi.com
Subject: Re: Prime magnitude and keys...a ?
In-Reply-To: <9406171853.AA02690@snark.imsi.com>
Message-ID: <199406171905.OAA11151@zoom.bga.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

> You can't find a reference in the library on why you can't build a
> machine that cracks DES by repeatedly trying the digitized sound
> tracks of porno films, either. Maybe you should try that -- who knows,
> it might work.
I see no reason to expect such a approach to work.

> > > I can pretty much hint to you that such a thing can't really be done
> > > in log base 2 of n time in the sense that I believe I can prove that
> > >
> > This is a joke right? Why in the world should the base have a damn thing
> > to do with the algorithm?
> Ahem. Perhaps you should have kept awake in school. Log base 2 of a
> number just means the number of bits in it.
I understand what you are saying, what I am saying is that factoring is
not an issue. I am not factoring anything.

> > > any algorithm that did that would have to involve none of the basic
> > > four arithmetic operations on the numbers in question. (Algorithms
> > > involving no arithmetic on the numbers are still possible, but
> > > intuitively quite unlikely.)
> > >
> > Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here at all. Could you clarify?
> It is very unlikely to me that you can factor a number in time smaller
> than you can square it. Thats the point I'm trying to make. Sorry to
> burst your bubble. Oh, I'm sure you'll come back with some silly
> comment on "what does squaring the number have to do with anything" or
> some similar crud.
see comment above comment above relating to factoring...

> > As far as I am concerned if it could be done w/ a neural network,
> Oh, god. Neural networks have been invoked. As we know, neural
> networks are magical. They are always the answer. After all, we have a
> huge number of complex mathematical proofs out there that have been
> solved with neural nets -- why, the Reiman Hypothesis was recently
> proved by one, wasn't it? Or was that the exact measurement of Dan
> Quayle's IQ -- its so easy to confuse them.
Perry, I have been using neural networks in both software and hardware
for several years now. I am well aware of what they can and can't do.
Could we please get off this personal attack shit?....

I am interested in discussing a particular idea that I had relating to
RSA and comparing keys, not what your personal opinion of me or my idea
is. If you don't like it how about not responding to any of my posts or
putting me in your kill file....

Ad hominim attacks reflect more on  you than me...

> I tell you what, Jim. I'll pay you $10,000 if you can come up with an
> algorithm that factors numbers or even just breaks RSA in O(log(n))
> time or less (where n is the length of the number being factored or
> the public key). I'd offer more, but it would be cruel. If you don't
> know what the notation O(f(n)) means, please don't come back asking.
Perry, see the above comments. 
> Perry