HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:30:36 GMT
Reply-To: lwloen@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Nov19.172719.1540@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov18.193900.20199@rchland.ibm.com>
|> lwloen@vnet.ibm.com writes:
|> >In article <BxvEF3.Kqw.2@cs.cmu.edu> Jiri Sgall writes:
|> >
|> >>(partial quote of James Annan):
|> >
|> >>|> And remember, proving P=NP doesn't necessarily mean finding such an algorithm,
|> >>|> merely proving it exists.
|> >>|> 
|> >
|> >>Once you have the proof, you can easily run a kind of universal algorithm,
|> >>which will be guaranteed to be polynomial
|> >
|> >OK, I don't know beans about P and NP.  So, an elementary question:
|> >
|> >Do all programs of class P halt?  Your "universal algorithm" seems perilously
|> >close to the "halting" problem and I have never been able to eliminate it
|> >from far simpler cases than P or NP.  Or, is the halting issue kind of a
|> >separate point/issue (ie, the solution is "P" when it works)?
|> 
|> Each program in P runs in polynomial time, so it must halt.

Or is it, rather, P runs in polynomial time when it finds an answer?  I 
realise this is very basic, but I have yet to have encountered any significant
sub-set of programs that are not trivial that can be counted on to halt.

|> 
|> Number all the polynomial-time machines (by adding a clock to each
|> Turing Machine); do this in such a way that machine k runs in time < n^k.
|> The "universal algorithm" consists of running machine i until it halts,
|> and checking to see if an answer is found.  If machine k solves the
|> problem, then this algorithm runs in time k n^k.  If P != NP, then
|> this universal machine might not halt.  (More likely, it will always
|> halt, but not within any polynomial time bound.)
|> 

Surely, it can't be this easy.  I get squeamish whenever I see clocks and
numbers on arguments of this kind.  Is the cardinality of the set of
P algorithms == number of natural numbers?  Why doesn't Cantor's diagonal
argument crop up somewhere and spoil everything?  (I don't necessarily mean
the original, but an appropriate analog of it).
  
Or, does the cardinality N (that is, of natural numbers)
arise elsewhere in this problem?  I suppose some really smart people have
already covered this ground; it is all very counter to my intuition.  Maybe
it's time for me to take a class on all of this stuff. . .

|> Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

-- 
   Larry W. Loen        |  My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
                        |  do not attribute them to my employer
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: New Encryption - a Challenge
From: jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner)
Date: 22 Nov 92 15:14:46 EST
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Writes Ken Pizzini:
>  > > You are absolutely wrong.
>  >
>  > Oh, c'mon now.  If the scheme is to be used by more than a small 
>  > handful of people then at least the executable will be available 
>  > for analysis.  And with a suitible effort at disassembly/
>  > decompiling it can be analysed for the underlying algolrithm.
>  
>  You are thinking in very conventional ways. Perhaps we use a
>  hexadecimal Ouija board to point at letters and don't really know 
>  WHAT it'll do next... :-)  It's determined by the spirits. 
>  A spiritual key. (Actually, I have been authorized to say now that
>  NuCrypt relies on the use of embedded 2048-bit shifting keys.)

you're ignoring the point. if the algorithm is going to run on a computer
it has to use "conventional ways". there are no hexadecimal Ouija 
board devices available for computer i know of. (if you've developed 
one, great, but you haven't claimed that yet, so this is a red 
herring.) any applications written to use this method still have to 
use the good ol' machine language.

anything that can be understood by a computer can be understood by a
human, given enough effort. -that- is the point. your algorithm
will eventually be known. 

jason, who doesn't care a bit about NuCrypt, but finds these claims
	rather absurd.

--
`,`,`, "greed & fear" `,`,`,`,`,`,` jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu ,`,`,`
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Demons and Ogres
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:28:27 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov17.001009.26363@rchland.ibm.com> lwloen@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>Sure, concerns do exist.  Law enforcement has some hard problems.
>But, most of the Bill of Rights is _not there_ to make the job of
>the cops easy; it is explicitly there to make it harder.
	Bravo!!!  Thank you so much for saying it like it is!

>There's no delusion, here.  Use of cryptography by out-and-out 
>criminals _is_ beyond government control.  So, why is it that only
>law abiding citizens are under the thumb of law enforcement and
>only other governments and the mafia get to keep their secrets?
	Exactly!!  

>It is not in _government's_ long term interest to surpress private
>thought.  But, government on a day to day basis could care less about
>the long run.  Haven't you heard of "thought crime?"  The idea is alive
>and well and you seem bound and determined to help government 
>create and enforce it.
	Yes.  And the net.quislings are ready to be their handmaidens.
	

>It is probably true that the government can detect my use of crypto
>and throw me in jail.  That is a practical reality.  But, hey, no one
>ever said that the First Amendment ever came free.  Almost every
>freedom we enjoy has and will continue to have a few poor souls going
>to jail for it.  
	Thank you so much for saying this.  Maybe sacrifices for freedom are
	NOT just for pretty speeches on Veterans Day after all.  You don't 
	know how happy it makes me to hear you say this.  In the future very 
	little blood will be shed by freedom lovers but sacrifice will still be
	necessary.  It makes me very happy to see that there still are
	folks here that know that and believe in freedom.

>Rights are not free.  They have to be fought for.  Why are you helping
>the cops?  Why are you assuming they will win?  Why are you assuming
>their interests and yours always coincide?  Or, do you really believe
>that cryptography is inherently dangerous?
	Right on Larry.  You can't imagine how glad I am to see others
	take Terry to task for selling freedom short.


						smg

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:42:02 GMT

> I'm going to be out of town for a few days this week.  I dread the
> 500 backlogged testosterone-driven sci.crypt postings that will
> certainly be piled up when I return.  Damn.  When will the newsgroup
> ever get back to normal?
> 
> -Philip Zimmermann
> 


Well, I hope this isn't too testosterone-driven, but as an activist
and a person who knows he and his wife are under surveillance - phone
tapped; mail being opened; I am nothing but thankful for Mr. Zimmerman's
efforts.  Well intentions aside, nobody has a right to read my email.

I hope they jail the child molestor but I'm sick of being deprived the
rights which my great-great-great-great-great grandparents fought for.
As a grandchild of John Adams and a son of the American Revolution 
I feel nauseous at the way that my communications have been treated by
the Bush/Reagan administration and am continuing my activities with the
help of PGP 2.0.  
 
-- 
Jeff Harrington             PGP 2.0 Public Key Available via Email
idealord@dorsai.com         
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon)
Subject: Re: The Tao and Cryptography
Organization: Integrated Micro Products Ltd
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:56:53 GMT

In <69501@cup.portal.com> Christopher_C_Lapp@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>The cryptographic system chosen by an organization reflects the philosophy
>and technology adopted by that organization.  It reflects how far up the
>mountain path of "Truth" the organization has traveled.  At the top of the
>mountain are undetectable, uncrackable, totally understandable cryptosystems
>that are based on fundamental, universal principles of cotion. As on
>e decends from this ideal, methods that reflect an imperfect understanding
>of reality, imperfect technology, and imperfect commtion, indeed, an
>imperfect philosophy borne of an imperfect spirit are adopted by an organizat
>
>of dictators are compared to cryptosystems of democracies, and cryptosystems
>of terrorists.  I think that even if you can't immdeiately crack an unknown
>code, this type of analysis would tell you much about the philosophy and
>predisposition to deception and other assumptions the crypographer was making
>about his advesaries and his audience.
>Any comments?

Yes: please supply the encryption key you have used,
so that we can all decode this into English! :-)
-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================
From: scs@ziggys.cts.com (Stuart C. Strait)  619/262-6384
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Attack methods
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 18:23:08 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Ziggy's Den Of Iniquity, East of East SD CA

Another related weakness of transposition ciphers is that
multiple annagramming may be possible on a single message,
due to regularities in the transposition.  If there are
no regularities at all, we have a key as long as the
message and thus a sort of one-time-transposition.  For
messages longer than a few tens of characters this would
be unbreakable, but less convenient than the equally strong
ordinary one-time cipher.

              scs@ziggys.cts.com - BBS (619)262-6384
                 Ziggy's Den Of Iniquity 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,comp.org.eff.talk
From: joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott)
Subject: Re: Honest People Have Nothing to Hide
Organization: U.S Dept. of Transportation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:00:31 GMT

cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:


>I just saw another reference to this thought.

>Honest people *do* have something to hide -- from dishonest people.

Agreed.

-JTT
From: Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: New Encryption - a Challenge
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Nov 92  21:38:12

 
 Writes again cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison):
 
 > From the stream of postings it's obvious that this is someone 
 > either very young or very drunk or just trying to cause trouble.
 
 Carl,
 
     1. Regrettably, I'm no longer very young but being very young 
        is not necessarily bad.  Bill Gates was very young, and so 
        was Mozart. 
 
     2. I'm not very drunk, or even very slightly drunk. 
 
     3. I am not trying to cause trouble, unless a simple 
        challenge troubles you. In which case you might want to 
        consult another type of professional.
    
 
 > His mail is going on my KILL list.
 
 But that has always been your privilege! 
 

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
From: David Banisar <Banisar@eff.org>
Subject: Re: address, phone # list of congress
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A731C0935001AC84@truman.eff.org>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 19 Nov 92 22:07:15 GMT
Organization: Freelance troublemaker
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:11:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.123637.58@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us> ,
sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us writes:
>        I think it was asked where we could get the address of USA
government
>persons for letter writing and the like. Below I've included the
names of the
>elected officers. I don't have the address for the senate and
congress but I'm
>sure someone on the net does and will post it. In any case the list
includes a
>telephone number so that you may call and ask for an address.


All Senators can be reached at:

Sen. Blowhard
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510


Congressman can be written to at:

Congressman Bigmouth
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Where is the FAQ - new reader
Keywords: FAQ RSA PRIMES
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:36:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.183729.16527@mlb.semi.harris.com> dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com writes:
:Two quick questions from a new reader (and new to encryption) ...
:
:1.) Were can I get the most recent FAQ?
 
Dunno.

:
:2.) I am playing around with understanding RSA. Pretty simple.
:    (IMHO someone, someday, will find a fast way to factor huge primes)

I doubt it. A fast algorithm for factoring primes would be pretty useless.
(over Z that is).
 
What do you base your opinion on?


:    Anyway, the unencrypt step requires huge (x^y mod z) calculations.
:    Testing using 2-digit prime numbers still leads to computations such
:    as 1014^613 mod 1147 = 385. Can you point me to a fast numerical
:    algorithm for performing this type of computartion.
 
As always, see Knuth, Vol. 2. He has an entire section devoted to this.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: unpredictable random generators (terminology)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 12:14:02 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

In article <CH28NFT@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> 
(Prof. Dr. Klaus Pommerening) writes: 
      ....
> In the literature there is a certain confusion as to how call this sort
> of (unpredictable) pseudo-random generators. Examples are:
>  - secure
>  - unpredictable
>  - cryptographically strong
>  - perfect
> I prefer the latter term, because it is so short, and, more
> important, the cryptographic strength implies that the generator
> passes all efficient statistical tests -- truly perfect, isn't it?

        This raises an interesting question: Given an unpredictable
        number generator (never mind how), just how (statistically)
        random does its output have to be to be cryptographically
        strong? I'm thinking of something like Pickover's strange
        attractor. There's a hazy pattern there, but it doesn't seem
        that the pattern would be a useful analytic tool.

        For the record, Pickover's Strange Attractor:

        X' = sin(a*Y) - Z*cos(b*X)
        Y' = Z*sin(c*X) - cos(d*Y)
        Z' = e*sin(X)

                a,b,c,d,e and the initial X,Y,Z are arbitrary values.

        I'm not suggesting that Pickover is an UNG, but offering it as
        an example of a generator with a non-random, but interesting
        distribution.

        Cheers,
                Marc
---
 Marc Thibault        |  Consulting Systems Analyst  |  The PC: Colt '45
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  of the information
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |   frontier
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
From: Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: New Encryption - a Challenge
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Nov 92  21:51:16

Writes zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk):
 
 > Why don't you post to sci.physics, telling everyone that you've 
 > developed a perpetual motion machine. Then you can whine the same 
 > way when experts "post theoretical considerations" about why they 
 > won't waste time with you.
 
 Why?   Because I don't have such a perpetual-motion machine.  
 I DO have a hard-to-break encryption method.  Perpetual motion
 machines defy basic principles of physics. Tough encryption does
 not. Your comparison is all wet, as is your thinking. 
      
 
 > Even better, why don't you post to rec.autos.tech and tell them 
 > you've developed a new carburetor that lets cars run on tap water. 
 
 Sure, if I had such a carburetor, I might post there as suggested.
 But what I have instead is a new encryption method, so I post it 
 here.
 
 
 > You might find a few people there who would believe you.
 
 Frankly, I don't really give a hoot whether you "believe" me or 
 not. I just would like to know whether you can break a trivial
 instance of NuCrypt encryption.  Can you? 
 
 > There's nothing wrong with posting here. Perhaps you will find 
 > beginners who will accept the challenge. Just don't get all huffy 
 > when experts dismiss it out of hand. 
 
 Sure, I'm not choosy.  Experts, beginners... everybody's invited!
 The prize offered is available equally to all, regardless of 
 professional status or academic degree. First one to break it gets
 the prize.
 
 
 > At least they told you what your friend needs to do for them 
 > to be interested.
 
 Some asked to see the algorithm in order to tell us how it works.
 Some trick.  We already know how it works.  No, I'm afraid that's 
 not _quite_ what I'm after... :-)  Thank you very much...
 

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: ripr - sh script to pipe ripem-encrypted files to in elm
Date: 21 Nov 1992 13:50:39 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: affirmed.csl.sri.com

Marc VanHeyningen writes:
|> Thus said boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher):
|> >
|> >------------- clip clip -----------------------
|> >#!/bin/sh
|> ># ripr [output_plaintext_file_name] < encrypted_file_name

[stuff deleted...]

|>
|> This stuff, too, is in the environment.

I only started using ripem a couple of days ago, and found it painful to use.
These scripts definitely made it better.  If you have something useful to say,
say it.  Otherwise, me'tetelo por donde no llega el sol.

|> BTW, thanks for using a Real Programming Shell; many people would try to
|> write this using <gag> cshell.

BOURNE STRIKES AGAIN!!!

|> If I use this script, how exactly am I supposed to know who the message
|> is from?

The header's in the clear, and you can choose the name of the output file.

Do you have something better?  How about sharing it?

-- 
Peter K. Boucher
--
RIPEM public key available upon request.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: jgn@homebrew.bellcore.com (Joseph G. Niederberger)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Reply-To: jgn@homebrew.UUCP (Joseph G. Niederberger)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:13:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.090548.5840@cs.ruu.nl> piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes:
>>>>>> lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen) (LL) writes:
>
>LL>  Why doesn't Cantor's diagonal
>LL> argument crop up somewhere and spoil everything?  (I don't necessarily mean
>LL> the original, but an appropriate analog of it).
>
>Why should it?

Real answer is because algorithms are (by definition) not allowed to be 
infinitely long. Cantor's diagnolization works because decimal expansions
of real numbers are (countable)-infinitely long.

Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: djimenez@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (Daniel Jimenez)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:24:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.193815.20700@odin.diku.dk> bombman@diku.dk (Hans-Henrik St{rfeldt) writes:
>clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov15.110945.19939@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, Daniel Jimenez writes:
>
>>Anyone who believes P=NP is an idiot.
>Anyone who believes the eath is round is an idiot.
>
>>Case closed.
>Case closed.

Please check your attributions.  I did not say that.
I, like other thinking people, don't believe the case is closed at all.
-- 
Daniel Jimenez                     djimenez@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
"I've so much music in my head" -- Maurice Ravel, shortly before his death.
"                             " -- John Cage
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Public Key Patents
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.055106.5154@netcom.com> rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
> ...
>Correct.  I am arguing a question relating to funding.  I am informed
>that in fact the work in question was partially funded by public money
>and partially by these private institutions themselves.  I believe that
>substantial public funding should confer public rights and I leave the
>definition of substantial for debate.

Many (most?) government contracts include the option of the contractor
retaining intellectual property rights.  The public rights to which
you refer are the fact that the government retains the non-exclusive
license to use the work it paid for -- a substantial public benefit.
A public right does not mean that any individual can benefit.

All of this is very normal and not at all new.  There are MANY
inventions out there making millions for companies that was paid
for in some way by the government.



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: weaver@kuttner.sfc.sony.com (Eric Weaver)
Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
Organization: SONY Advanced Video Technology Center San Jose, CA USA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:33:13 GMT


In article <Nov.16.03.59.05.1992.2368@remus.rutgers.edu>, clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:
|> 
|> Anyone who believes P=NP is an idiot.
|> 
|> Case closed.
|> -- 
|> Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

Wow!  What an impressive demonstration of scholarly prowess!
Chews 'em right up in the crushing jaws of logic.
-- 
Eric Weaver  Sony AVTC  677 River Oaks Pkwy, MS 35  SJ CA 95134  408 944-4904
& Chief Engineer, KFJC 89.7 Foothill College, Los Altos Hills CA 94022
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: sysevm@nsrvan.vanc.wa.us
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:23:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsrvan.1992Nov21.112308.60
Organization: National Systems & Research, Vancouver WA

In article <1ej1fsINN5ad@morrow.stanford.edu>, castor@drizzle.Stanford.EDU (Castor Fu) writes:
> With all the talk about "suspected" child molesters, etc. I thought I
> would bring up one point. How do people feel about restricting cryptographic
> privileges of people once they have been convicted of a particular
> set of crimes?
> 
> It seems to me that  once a person has violated certain rules, e.g.
> child molestation, insider trading, etc.  one might restrict their
> access to tools which are particularly useful towards those ends,
> e.g. guns, crypto etc.
> 
> After all, in the case which is being discussed, hadn't this person
> been previously convicted of child molesting?
> 
> --
> Castor Fu, (foo@leland.stanford.edu)

With all due respect, 


Let me get this straight. YOu are suggesting that convicted felons are required
to give up their privacy even after their terms are up. I don't see the
differience between this and requireing them to wear a transmitter at all times
so that the LE staffers can listen in at random without due process (in
principal). Felons have rights. (Yes, I know about no guns for felons but how
was the constitution bypassed here?)

Let me suggest some reading. First, try 'Lacey and Friends' as a look at what
the USA as a police state might be like, Then tell us if it is
relevent.(author???) Next, Try Poe's 'A Cask of Amontillado'. Think of the host
as the US government, The guest as the US people, and the bricks as small laws
of restriction. 


Regards, Ethan