HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: pseudo one time pad...
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:44:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: ellisun.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov11.173642.29608@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu> butzerd@columbia.eng.ohio-state.edu (Dane C. Butzer) writes:
>  "Random number generators" are
>  frequently dreamed up by newcomers as a "pseudo one time pad",
>  but they are notoriously vulnerable to analysis, all
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  independent of whether the pseudo-random stream satisfies
>  randomness tests or not.
>
	[example of DES as a PRNG]

>This is pseudo one time pad that I don't think would be "easy" to break.
>Now, how about substituting some other type of PRNG for DES?  If its
>non-predictive (can't determine numbers in the stream from other numbers)
>and statistically random, whouldn't it work?  Is the real problem coming up
>with a "good" enough PRNG?

Of course, if you use a cryptographically strong PRNG, it's as good as a
1-time-pad.  That's the definition of cryptographic strength -- that the
PRNG is indistinguishable by any polynomial time&space test from true
random numbers.

The FAQ was warning against use of standard, canned PRNGs (e.g.,

	x' = a*x+b mod N

) as the generator.

BTW, Ron Rivest published a secure PRNG method in an early Cryptologia.  As
I remember it, he used

	x' = x^2 mod N

taking one bit from each iteration.  If you know x at any time, you can go
forward trivially -- but because sqrt() is multi-valued, you can't go
backwards.  So, he then used TWO such bit streams -- one forward through
the message and one backward.  He XORed the message text with both streams.

[I assume you have to use large numbers N and x0 -- to avoid finally getting
to the value x=1 and having the generator be no good any more.]

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: RSA marketing weakness or lack of demand?
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:59:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov10.065940.3930
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


Peter Gutmann appears to have an axe to grind when he criticizes
RSAREF as a "toy" since it IS made available for use in RIPEM.
It works fine, and does the job. Moreover, an even more useful
and powerful version is incorporated in the latest Beta 4 version
of RIPEM. This seems inconsistent with Gutmann's strongly
-- 
David Sternlight
(pgp 2.0 and ripem public keys available on request)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: esz001@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Will Overington)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,alt.uu.future
Subject: Re: Are all crows black? => Logic as an essential subject?
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:19:11 GMT
Organization: Coventry University

It was me that asked whether logic should be a compulsary subject.

For many years I have done a little Boolean algebra, but only this
summer have I even learned of syllogisms, and am indeed amazed that
I could be a graduate without not having learned of syllogisms and
their rules as part of general education.

Can I ask please, is syllogisms and the like what sci.logic is about,
or am I missing something fundamental.

Please post replies, as I am sure that there may be other people in
the same position.
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Natural Kinds (was re: Are all crows black?)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:14:53 GMT

In article <Bx8yvo.6ty@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>But one of my major points is that calling a discipline "not a science"
>is *not* (necessarily) a put down.  Hence my remark that "science" is
>often used primarily for its "honorific" value.  Both Zeleny and I
>have urged (and offered evidence) that mathematics is not (generally)
>considered to be a *science*.  Yet I believe that both of us regard
>it as somehow "purer" and in some sense "better" than a science:
>more fundamental, stricter criteria of adequacy, etc.

An excellent point, and I am guilty of letting one of my own biases
blind me to it.

That said, let me state and argue my bias.  Luckily I've already done
this about 6 weeks ago on Usenet, so I don't have to spend any
additional time on this, just to post two relevant contributions. The
third of these, from Jim Carr (whose postings are always among my
favorites), suggests that I'm not completely out to lunch on this
point.
--
Vaughan Pratt				There's no truth in logic, son.



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Computability of the universe
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1992 00:11:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.203139.11014@cs.UAlberta.CA> pawel@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pawel Gburzynski) writes:
>This is what makes Physics different from Mathematics.

The differences I'm aware of:

1.  Much of mathematics has no evident application to physics.

2.  Experimental physics is taken very seriously.

3.  There is a Nobel prize for physics.

4.  Physics is better funded.

I can't think of any other differences substantive enough to warrant
mention.  Both attract geniuses.  The applicability of mathematics is a
function of time, whence "evident".  Any causal arrows in the list
point downwards.  Experimental mathematics is a widely misunderstood
subject today, a problem that computers are just now beginning to help
with; some of the best mathematicians have been or are excellent
experimenters.

-- 
=================================================== Trouble is, son
Vaughan Pratt   pratt@cs.Stanford.EDU  415-494-2545 The farther you run
=================================================== The more you feel undefined


==========================================================================

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Computability of the universe
Date: 23 Sep 92 17:13:10 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Sep23.001155.15648@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.203139.11014@cs.UAlberta.CA> pawel@cs.UAlberta.CA (Pawel Gburzynski) writes:
>>This is what makes Physics different from Mathematics.
>
>The differences I'm aware of:
>
>1.  Much of mathematics has no evident application to physics.
>2.  Experimental physics is taken very seriously.
>3.  There is a Nobel prize for physics.
>4.  Physics is better funded.

I would add that theorems in physics are of no interest unless they make 
testable predictions, whereas the opposite is true in mathematics. 

It is also important to note the correlation between 2 and 4 in your list. 
The best funded part of physics is experimental physics, by any measure 
you wish to use, and this is precisely because the primary goal of physics 
is to come up with a model for various parts of the world that describe 
in advance the results of experiments.  

The divergence between Natural Philosophy and Philosophy grew as the value 
of knowing how many people a bridge could hold became economically more 
important than knowing the number of angels that could fit on a pin ;-)

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)

===================================================================



-- 
Vaughan Pratt				There's no truth in logic, son.
Xref: sparky sci.logic:2007 sci.philosophy.meta:2540 sci.math:14828
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.math
Subject: Re: Will a mathematician locked up in a little room be happy?
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:28:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.logic
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Nov6.024607.6831@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>Gary Merrill writes:
>
>>You can take a mathematician and lock him in his little office with just
>>some writing materials and he will (a) be pretty happy, and (b) be able
>>and willing to do anything of a mathematical nature.  Even a committed
>>*theoretical* physicist will be very distressed under such circumstances
>>since he has not way to determining whether his theories (however abstract)
>>are *good* ones.

Actually, even the most rarefied pure mathematician is not likely to be
happy with this arrangement, although it might be closer to his idea of
nirvana than what he presently occupies. History shows that communication
is essential for the bulk of good mathematics, (as far as I know no other
field is as addicted to its literature as mathematics). Hardy's criteria,
(good mathematics is _new_ _true_ and _interesting_), are not likely to be
much use in isolation. (_New_ and _Interesting_ seem obvious, but you have
to think a little about _true_...)

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.math,sci.physics
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.math
Subject: Re: What is Computer Science (was: Natural Kinds)
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:33:45 GMT
	<1992Nov8.210316.5922@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
	<1992Nov9.005241.29492@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<BxGBsJ.8qG@unx.sas.com>
Followup-To: sci.logic
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com's message of 9 Nov 92 13:50:43 GMT

In article <BxGBsJ.8qG@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
   Do you see CS as having any immediate empirical content in the
   manner of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?

What are "etc." in this case?  I'm still waiting to see any mention of
a "science" that isn't (IMHO) a "natural science".

As for empirical content, what about the example of routing via
simmulated annealing?  There is no way to check this is any good
without experimenting (i.e. writing the code for the router and trying
it on as many boards as you can find).  As I noted before you may not
consider this CS as a computer was only used to prove the method
worked (ignoring the fact that routing has an obvious application in
the design of computers).  However, if you do have this view, I would
be interested to know under what banner you felt this work lay.

bevan

BTW In case your wondering, the above isn't my work, I just happen to
know a person who has done a lot of work in the area.
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Russell's Paradox
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 17:25:32 GMT
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

In article <25916@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>No, I am not complaining about elementhood being a proposition, I am
>complaining about a syntactic circularity begin treated as though it
>had semantic significance.  Neither am I concerned about the
>unrestricted range of the quantification.  As the set {x : x = x}
>clearly shows, there is no inconsistency inherent in either
>self-membership or impredicativity.  I claim that {x : x = x} is a
>perfectly reasonable set and that the mere fact that ZF proves the
>opposite is enough to show that ZF is not an adequate axiomatization
>of set theory.

All right; but what would you put in it's place?  I'm not willing to call
something "set theory" unless it has *some* recognizable form of the axiom
of comprehension.  Can you formalize your ideas?
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Russell's Paradox
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:32:46 GMT

In article <25916@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>In article  <1992Nov04.233228.16942@Cookie.secapl.com> Frank Adams writes:
>]In article <24780@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
>]>This (or so I claim) is the single, simple, obvious cause of Russel's
>]>paradox.  In particular, R = {x : x not elem x} is a definition of
>]>type (2) that contains an implicit reference to R because x quantifies
>]>over a set that contains R.  (Or you could show the recursion in the
>]>definition of elem as I did before)...
>]
>]It appears to me that you are complaining not about elementhood being a
>]proposition, but about the unrestricted range of the quantification in the
>]axiom of comprehension.  Note that your complaint about the implicit
>]reference to R is just as applicable to R = {x : x = x}, which gives the
>]universal set without using elementhood.
>
>No, I am not complaining about elementhood being a proposition, I am
>complaining about a syntactic circularity begin treated as though it
>had semantic significance.  Neither am I concerned about the
>unrestricted range of the quantification.  As the set {x : x = x}
>clearly shows, there is no inconsistency inherent in either
>self-membership or impredicativity.  I claim that {x : x = x} is a
>perfectly reasonable set and that the mere fact that ZF proves the
>opposite is enough to show that ZF is not an adequate axiomatization
>of set theory.

Dare I concur?

>-- 
>					David Gudeman
>gudeman@cs.arizona.edu



-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: hbe@sonia.math.ucla.edu (H. Enderton)
Subject: Re: Help finding Lukasiewicz papers?
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 16:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.153633.13547@infodev.cam.ac.uk> jg@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
>Does some kind person have English translations of these papers that they
>could send me copies of?
>Jan Lukasiewicz. O logice trojwartosciowej. Ruch filozoficzny, 5:170-171, 1920.
>Jan Lukasiewicz. O pojecie mozliwosci. Ruch filozoficzny, 5:169-170, 1920.

There is an English translation of these in "Polish logic 1920-1939,"
edited by Storrs McCall, Oxford 1967, pp. 15-18.
Someone in Cambridge must have this Oxford book!

--Herb Enderton    (hbe@math.ucla.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.math,sci.physics
From: kbanerje@grad07.math.ncsu.edu (Kaushik Banerjee)
Subject: Re: What is Computer Science (was: Natural Kinds)
Organization: NCSU Mathematics Dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:23:08 GMT


Computer Science is something one can find gainful employment
in; mathematics is something one can not find gainful
employment in.

K. Banerjee
From: horj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Eric Scheirer)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Computer Science vs. Software Eng. (was re: Natural Kinds)
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:25:03 EST
Followup-To: sci.logic
Distribution: sci
Organization: Cornell University

In article <MARTINC.92Nov9095218@grover.cs.unc.edu>,
martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes: 

> engineering vs. chemistry, there are techniques and methods that apply
> to software engineering that are *used* in computer science, and
> (naturally) methods and techniques from computer science that must be
> used by software engineers.
> 
> As to whether they *should* be separate: of course not.  All software
> engineers know that computer science is a subdiscipline of software
> engineering. 
> --

I've been following this thread with great interest, and thought that
it might be time to inject my bit.  I'll specifically disclaim my 
qualifications here; I'm an undergrad in Cornell CS, where I've been
focussing on theory.  I could probably handwave answers to most of 
Prof. Pratt's lovely list of comp questions other than the graphics/image
processing ones.  I also have a few years' experience as a C grunt in 
a programming house.

I think that an interesting comparison of science vs. engineering vs.
math in computing science can be drawn around the lines of program correctness,
or verification (Q. #12).

There are, empirically, at least three major ways of detecting bugs:
 
  1. Use the program until it fails to work.  

  2. Try to construct a lot of test cases during development.

  3. Try to prove the program correct (in the Gries sense) before coding it,
     and fail.

Certainly, it would be possible to construct an argument that these 
methods correspond to "science", "engineering", and "math" respectively.

Program correctness seems to have a wide range of approaches, which 
seem to cover the field from the clearly "math" to the clearly "engineering".
-- 
Eric Scheirer -- Cornell University, Ithaca, NY -- (607) 277-1899
"I got remote control and a color TV; I don't change channels so they
 must've changed me." -- Billy Joel
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Are all crows black? => Logic as an essential
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:17:56 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1duqtpINNjl1@columbia.cs.ubc.ca> 
kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean) writes:

>In article <MARTINC.92Nov12021908@hatteras.cs.unc.edu>
>martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.edu writes:

CM:
>>Let's not put Will off of syllogistic logic, though, please.  There are
>>too many people graduating as it is without knowing the difference
>>between "All men are mortal/Socrates is a man -> Socrates is mortal" and
>>"All men are mortal/Socrates is mortal -> Socrates is a man".

AK:
>I have not graduated yet, what is the difference?

Validity.  (This is truly depressing.)

AK:
>Best Regards,

Have you considered a career in feminist computer science?

>Alex Kean <kean@cs.ubc.ca>
>
>Department of Computer Science           
>University of British Columbia
>6356 Agricultural Road,
>Vancouver, British Columbia
>Canada V6T 1Z2
>
>Tel: +1 (604)-822-3061
>Fax: +1 (604)-822-5485

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
Xref: sparky sci.logic:1961 alt.uu.future:260
From: higa@lclark.edu (Keith Higa)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,alt.uu.future
Subject: Re: Are all crows black? => Logic as an essential subject?
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:36:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Nov8.193612.16707
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1992Nov8.072149.18855@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> casley@Tarski.Stanford.EDU (Ross Casley) writes:
>It does take a lot of work to get to a position where a statement that is
>clearly mathematical is clearly analytic too.  But that doesn't seem to 
>have any bearing on whether it is worthwhile to learn elementary logic
>in high school.

My feeling is, if it were to be put in the curriculum, the best place to put
it is high school geometry.  Every geometry text has a section on logic some-
where, but it's usually relegated to the appendices.

Whether it is worthwhile...I think at least knowing propositional logic
should be of some use, at least by way of an introduction, IMHO.


-- 
Keith K. Higa                         Lewis & Clark College    
higa@lclark.edu                       Portland, OR, USA
In a hierarchy each member tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence.
                                 --The Peter Principle
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Subject: (impredic./Russell) - Apology & thanks.
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:11:29 GMT

Apologies for my mistake about ZF vs ZF- , and the extra noise level it
intoduced into the discussion.  Incidentally, though a quick check shows that
ZF *does* include foundation as a usual convention, it is *not* quite universal,
(though I doubt this would help moderate the bullying tone of some who insisted
on universality).     An exception is 
 
"Introduction to Set Theory", Hrbacek & Jech; 1st edition  11.1; 2nd edn  12.1;
in both of which they give the standard axioms *without* foundation, stating it
to be ZF.  In fact they do not seem to mention foundation in the whole book.


Thanks to those who contributed to the discussion; especially...

Randall Holmes - for a simple and excellent account of the failure of 
             extensionality of my sets A & B (I liked the expression "hypnotized
by notation"; and ditto for the hierarchy induced by AFA.  I learnt a lot
from these posts; thanks indeed.

Torkel Franzen - for typically down-to-earth remarks about the silliness of
        taking various postures of principle about these matters, a sensible
view (though perhaps a little too formalist for some tastes).

Vaughn Pratt - for a sprightly and provocative series of posts that kept the
     ball rolling nicely (if randomly), I liked "inflammatory heresy". Also
for frank apologies and admissions of error where appropriate. (It's a pity
this admissory tendency isn't more widespread on the net.)

David Gudeman - for continuing to attempt clarification of his intuitive ideas
      in the face of a barrage of opposition.

Thanks all; it was a lot of fun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Galaxies - results of chaotic amplification of quantum events in the big bang.
 Free will- the result of chaotic amplification of quantum events in the brain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mmatusev@radford.vak12ed.edu (Melissa N. Matusevich)
Subject: Re: Human Computers....
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Radford)
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 03:08:49 GMT

How about Adam's _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_?
-- 
                     Melissa Matusevich          
                 mmatusev@radford.vak12ed.edu
From: kean@cs.ubc.ca (Alex Kean)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Are all crows black? => Logic as an essential subject?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 15:55:37 -0800
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: columbia.cs.ubc.ca

In article <MARTINC.92Nov12021908@hatteras.cs.unc.edu> martinc@hatteras.cs.unc.
>
>Let's not put Will off of syllogistic logic, though, please.  There are
>too many people graduating as it is without knowing the difference
>between "All men are mortal/Socrates is a man -> Socrates is mortal" and
>"All men are mortal/Socrates is mortal -> Socrates is a man".
>

I have not graduated yet, what is the difference?

Best Regards,

Alex Kean <kean@cs.ubc.ca>

Department of Computer Science           
University of British Columbia
6356 Agricultural Road,
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6T 1Z2

Tel: +1 (604)-822-3061
Fax: +1 (604)-822-5485