HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: Privacy -- encrypt/de
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:42:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

PWPD> .As other posters have pointed out, monitoring cordless phone
    > .links is *NOT* illegal in the US.  I believe monitoring cellular
    > .phone calls is not against the law, either, except that you
    > .cannot disclose the contents of anything you monitor or use it
    > .for your own gain.

No, it is indeed illegal to monitor cellphone calls.  What you cite is
the "old" Communications Act, but the ECPA made even listening to
cellphone frequencies illegal.  It also covers any "coded"
communications, so if someone applies simple frequency inversion
"scrambling" to a cordless phone, it becomes illegal to monitor that.

PWPD> .The real lesson, I'm afraid, is: don't expect *ANY* privacy on
    > .cordless or cellular phones.  You stand a good chance of
    > .being disappointed if you do.

And how!

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                               
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: roth@3d.enet.dec.com (Jim Roth)
Subject: Re: Fraction part of squareroots as one time pads ?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 11 JAN 93 17:35:53    


In article <1993Jan11.143125.24040@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes...
>In article <1993Jan11.111351.7777@hsr.no> frank@hsr.no (Frank A Stevenson) writes:
>: question about using irrational root as a "one time pad"...

>Your last point might be questioned. There are some good integer relation
>finding algorithms (Ferguson & Forcade, for example and improvements)
>that allow one to very quickly determine that the number is the root of
>an integer, based upon just the first few digits.  Once that is determined,
>finding the rest of the key is trivial. 

>The same would be true for any ALGEBRAIC irrational.

I know how to do this using a lattice basis reduction algorithm, (such
as LLL) but don't know the Ferguson & Forcade refrence - can you post a
citation?  (I think the "first few digits" would have to be on the
order of the height of the underlying minimal polynomial, but that's still
not much info...)

(I asked publically since others may be interested as well.)

Thanks,

    - Jim
Newsgroups: sci.crypt,alt.security.ripem
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: Complete ITAR Available
Organization: the best minds of a generation, destroyed by madness
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:57:18 GMT
	<CKD.93Jan10211803@loiosh.eff.org> <1993Jan11.172918.1521@netcom.com>

In article <1993Jan11.172918.1521@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
   In article <CKD.93Jan10211803@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher
   Davis) writes:
   >that export of RIPEM would be legal, which would make it possible for those
   >both inside and outside the US and Canada to use it, and make it a
   >practical cross-border public-key encryption system.

   RSA's attorneys say not, at least with respect to RSAREF, which right now
   is an essential part of RIPEM. Let's leave it there instead of continuing
   to repeat ourselves.

More precisely, RIPEM depends on having subroutines with the RSAREF interface 
which implement RSAREF functionality - RIPEM itself could be exported,
and some of those sinister foreigners could reimplement RSAREF,
as long as they stick to the interfaces, and then we could probably use RIPEM
for cross-border mail (assuming key-certification issues can be resolved),
without having to export RSAREF itself (which violates the RSAREF licenses,
as well as inviting problems from the ITAR-vogons.)

Has anybody read the RSAREF license carefully enough to determine
whether the interface definitions can be distributed without license?
(Doing so for the purpose of re-implementing RSAREF may disturb some people,
but doing so for the purpose of building code that USES RSAREF would
seem to be very much in the spirit of technology dissemination that
the patent process is supposed to encourage.)  
If it's ok to distribute the interface, one could also contend that an
interface definition isn't software, it's just documentation.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
Bush's pardon of his co-conspirators shows that he is, in the end, still a wimp.
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev)
Subject: Re: WordPerfect and US crypto laws
Reply-To: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de
Organization: Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Date:  5 Jan 93 17:20:11 GMT

ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:

> As far as I know, US laws forbid the export of cryptographic
> software. However, WordPerfect contains a (very simple and insecure)
> cryptographic feature. And WordPerfect is exported from the US with
> this feature. Why is this legal? Is it because the code is so
> easily broken? Is this the very reason for making the code so
> incredibly simple?

If I understand it correctly, the US -laws- do NOT forbid anything
like that. Instead, there are some export -regulations- (which are not
laws) that state that it is forbidden to export/import crypto software
without a license. Can anybody who has access to the full text of ITAR
tell us whether it contains a definition for "crypto software"? My
guess is that it doesn't and the Department of State keeps the right
to decide what is crypto software and what isn't. They probably try to
be reasonable and allow the export of weak crypto systems without a
license by saying that they are not strong enough to be considered
crypto software. Note again that this is just my wild guess - I am not
familiar with the US legal system. Let's hope that somebody more
competent than me will provide the necessary explanation.

Regards,
Vesselin
-- 
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev          Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226      Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.1 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de    D-2000 Hamburg 54, Germany
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: vcr+
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 11:59:17 GMT

In article <uuqXwB2w165w@works.uucp> hagopes@works.uucp (Yinco Schmeer) writes:
>Russ Schnapp writes:
>>>I guess the question is whether the patent number is public
>information...<<
>
>Isn't there a listing of these? Or some way to find out? And don't they
>have to print the patent number somewhere on the prodcut?
>                                        -Hagopes


	A patent is a **public record** describing an invention, it must
	include a detailed description of the invention and a set of
	claims that describe the invention for which the inventor
	demands an exclusive right or privilege.  All U.S. patents
	are published in the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and
	Trademark Office (at least a description of the invention is).

	There are exceptions, we recently had to deal with a patent
	issued in 1947 or 1948 dealing with nuclear weapons that had
	only recently been declassified, even though the patent rights
	had run out no later than 1965.  But, if the patent isn't
	classified, it should be available in the public domain.

	In addition, there are a number of databases covering the
	patent literature.  The most applicable to this case would be
	Derwent which is available through STN and Dialog.

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:08:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.005215.13278@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.191854.10303@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:

>>Do you have any references to more adequate studies of the algebra(s)
>>of truth values?
>
>Let me strongly recommend Birkhoff's Lattice Theory, if you don't mind
>impact can be felt at all levels, even the most elementary.  The
>algebra of truth values is a very rich subject today, from bottom to
>top, that is not adequately served by its literature.  [Further
references deleted.]

Also, if you are feeling adventurous and willing to drop distributivity,
you might check out the extensive literature on quantum logics.  For
starters, try 

The Logico-algebraic approach to quantum mechanics / edited by C. A.
Hooker.  
   Dordrecht ; Boston : D. Reidel Pub. Co., [1975]-1979.




Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1993Jan12.083955.19685@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<TORKEL.93Jan12110752@lludd.sics.se>
	<1993Jan12.201545.27599@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:29:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.201545.27599@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.
Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

   >Australian and American courts interrogate witnesses in a language that
   >presumes intuitionistic logic, in that they draw a distinction between
   >straight answers and hedged and insist on the former.

  The distinction between hedging and straight answers has nothing in
particular to do with intuitionistic logic, and your statement that it
"presumes intuitionistic logic" is quite arbitrary.  Furthermore,
natural language is not a formal system, and I doubt that it is
possible to find anything in the use of natural language corresponding
e.g. to the intuitionistic validity of the double negation of Peirce's
axiom.  This applies equally, of course, to classical propositional
logic. Formal logic doesn't tell us a great deal about what reasoning,
interrogation, justification, etc in natural language is like.

  More interesting is the other point you raised, concerning the
possibility of interpreting classical in intuitionistic theories via
e.g. a Godel translation, where you emphasized that the effect of this
is to introduce distinctions where there are none in classical logic.
But clearly this in itself tells us nothing about the usefulness or
interest of the intuitionistic versions of the theories. We can go on
to introduce a large number of logical distinctions, still with
Godel-type translations of classical theorems.  Such distinctions have
no intrinsic value. Looking at the distinctions introduced by
intuitionistic logic, they are in part natural in the sense that they
have a connection with or correspond to distinctions that we make in
mathematics and that we have found useful, such as the distinction
between direct and indirect proofs of existential statements. But
intuitionistic logic involves very much more than such natural
distinctions. For example, the logical distinction between ~~ExP(x)
and ExP(x), with P a decidable number-theoretic predicate, corresponds
to nothing in ordinary mathematical experience. For another example,
the splitting up of the concept of an infinite set of natural numbers
into "infinite", "not not infinite", "not bounded" introduces
considerable complications, and we don't even know whether it is possible to
teach and learn mathematics without "conflating" these concepts. We need
to think about such matters as well in considering distinctions.




Newsgroups: sci.logic,soc.culture.indian
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Date: 12 Jan 1993 15:32:09 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: tokio.cs.utexas.edu
Summary: What does this tell us?

-*----
In article <1993Jan12.201545.27599@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
> Australian and American courts interrogate witnesses in a language that
> presumes intuitionistic logic, in that they draw a distinction between
> straight answers and hedged and insist on the former. ...

One could interpret this to mean that the courts presume that
anything other than Boolean logic is an attempt to deceive
rather than to convey more subtle information.  I suspect that
a parent whose child says "I didn't not break the vase" would
view things similarly.

In short, I think it would be very easy to argue that the 
courts and parents are coming down on the side of boolean 
logic.

Russell
From: rags@triples.math.mcgill.ca (Robert A. G. Seely)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:20:21 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1993Jan10.191221.19172@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.225739.18143@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>
>rags@triples.math.mcgill.ca (Robert A. G. Seely) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan10.151351.19163@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>>> ... long quote deleted ...
>
>>Just a software request - I couldn't find this via "man trn" :
>>Is there any way to add to one's "kill" file posts classified by author
>>rather than by subject?  It is becoming clear to me that this might be
>>useful.
>
>/zeleny/h:=:j
>
>Recommended for insertion in your global KILL file.
>
>>- rags
>
>cordially,
>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."


Many thanks. - rags
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: duentsch@dosuni1.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de (Ivo Duentsch)
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Organization: University of Osnabrueck, FRG
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:24:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.005215.13278@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
 
>Unfortunately there is no one place to look for the bulk of the
>worthwhile material.  Despite its antiquity Birkhoff's Lattice Theory
>remains an encyclopedic starting point (rather like a volume of Knuth),
>but does not reflect the last three decades of development, whose
>impact can be felt at all levels, even the most elementary.  The
>algebra of truth values is a very rich subject today, from bottom to
>top, that is not adequately served by its literature.
 
However, there are now - or will be shortly - some comprehensive
texts reflecting the state of the art of the subject:
 
1. The proceedings of the conference on algebraic logic, Budapest 1988,
Coll Math Soc Janos Bolyai 54
 
2. The proceedings of the logic semester at the Banach Center, Warsaw,
Banach Center Publ 28, to appear 1993, as well as special issue of
Fund Inf
 
3. Istvan Nemeti's survey article "Algebraizations of quantifier logics,
an introductory overview", now in its 11th version,
to appear in Studia Logica.
 
And don't forget Rasiowa & Sikorski "The mathematics of metamathematics",
quite old but still rather useful and good to read (though
others may think differently).
 
Ivo Duentsch
Univ. Osnabrueck
From: sjv@doc.ic.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Product of sites
Date: 11 Jan 1993 12:58:55 GMT
Organization: Imperial College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dse-mac-l1-89.doc.ic.ac.uk

In article <ARA.93Jan10125554@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan
Adler) writes:
>
>Does the category of sites have products and if so how does one construct
them?
>
>It follows from material I found in Johnstone's book Topos Theory
>that the category of Grothendieck toposes has products but I don't know
>if the same is true for sites in general.
>

You don't say what your morphisms are between sites (nor between toposes for
that matter).

One sensible approach is to define the morphisms between sites so that they
correspond to geometric morphisms between the corresponding sheaf toposes. Then
the categories of sites and of Grothendieck toposes are equivalent, so of
course the category of sites has (finite) products.

Details will depend on exactly how you define site - e.g. is it an arbitrary
category with Grothendieck topology, or a category with finite limits? But what
it boils down to is that the site is some kind of presentation by generators
and relations for the topos, so a morphism is an interpretation of one site in
the sheaf topos of the other.

If you are considering sites based on arbitrary categories, then I guess the
product is going to be a "disjoint union" of sites. (Remember that geometric
morphisms in a sense go backwards, so limits look like colimits.)

Steve Vickers.
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Doctrines of Maybe: 7 truth values
From: Amos.Omondi@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Amos Omondi)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:36:51 GMT
Organization: Gatewayed from Mail to News at VUW, New Zealand
Return-Path: <Amos.Omondi@comp.vuw.ac.nz>
X-Mailer: mail-news 4.1



I read [*] that an ancient Hindu sect, the Jains, rejected the law of
the excluded middle and instead believed in seven truth values,
yielding their Doctrines of Maybe.  Anyone know how they characterized
these seven shades of truth?

	There are still about 100 million Jains around.  Why don't you 
	ask in soc.culture.indian or look around for someone whose 
	surname is "Jain".


Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: elt@mutei.Princeton.EDU (Ed Turner)
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:36:26 GMT

A radical critique of language which essentially denys its ability to
characterize reality is one of the foundations of Buddhist thought
(or more accurately, of Mahayanic Buddhist thought).  Mapped onto
ordinary bimodal logic, this is something like asserting that all
statements are false, and there is even a system of "systematic
denial" invented by a major figure in the formation of Mahayanic
"theory".  Of course, this quickly becomes self-referential
(the statement that all statements are false is itself false) and
thus paradoxical from a two-valued point of view.  However, it is
seen as an advantage (a feature not a bug) in the Buddhist context.

Taoism contains a similar anti-linguistic theme (independently derived?)
expressed by aphorisms such as "Those who speak do not understand; those
who understand do not speak" (a suitable slogan for the net?) and
"The Tao which can spoken is not the true Tao."

It is, thus, unsurprising that the branch of Mahayanic Buddhism
(Ch'an or zen) formed under the influence of Chinese Taoism rejects
language most forcefully and defines itself as a means of transmission
of the truth "by direct pointing of the mind" without reliance on any
words or scriptures.

Systems of Buddhist logic which are sometimes described as multi-valued
are more understandable in this framework.  In some sense, the various
possible values which can be assigned to a statement are intended to
indicated how much or in what general way a statement errs (or, in more
Buddhist language, the degree and nature of the delusion it expresses).

If this clears anything up, I'll be surprised.


--
Ed Turner			"There ain't no answer.
elt@astro.princeton.edu		 There ain't going to be any answer.
				 There never has been an answer.
				 That's the answer."
                                             - Gertrude Stein
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:47:37 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <1993Jan10.005215.13278@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>(I hope you can see my tongue sticking well into my
>cheek.)

Thanks to the telescope which you have just provided, yes. :-)

[Much interesting stuff deleted; thanks again.]

>[...] double negation
>served to retract a Heyting algebra onto a Boolean subalgebra of it

Is this by any chance related to the construction of the regular open
algebra of a topological space?
--
Gus Rodgers,  Dept. of Computer Science, | Cinema's worst romantic dialogue? --
Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End | "Mechagodzilla's brain is  installed
Road, London, England.   +44 71 975 5241 | in my stomach!" "I don't care if you
E-mail (JANET):   arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk | are a cyborg  --  I still love you!"
Newsgroups: sci.logic
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Doctrines of Maybe: 7 truth values
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:32:48 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <8565@charon.cwi.nl>, frankt@cwi.nl (Frank Teusink) writes:
|> colinb@.ic.ac.uk (Dr C. Bridgewater) writes:
|> 
|> >Anthropologist says that a tribe in Africa have a 1-2-many number
|> >system because of elephants.... Why ? Well, it's possible to avoid
|> >1 mad elephant quite easily. A brave and fleet-of-foot person may
|> >avoid 2 mad elephants, but after that no-one has a chance. Hence
|> >there is no need for them to have a higher number than the number
|> >of elephants a hunter can escape from.....
|> 
|> I find it hard to believe this. Everybody who has seen many mad
|> elephants dies before he/she can communicate the concept of the
|> existence of many mad elephants to the tribe. So, how did they
|> find out about the possible existence of many mad elephants?
|> 
|> Bye, ;-)
|> 
|> Frank Teusink

The collective unconscious, of course.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Multiple Truth Values
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:46:33
Organization: UNC Department of Computer Science
	<1993Jan9.185347.9555@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
	<1993Jan9.191854.10303@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: grover.cs.unc.edu
In-reply-to: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk's message of 9 Jan 93 19:18:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.191854.10303@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:

   In <1993Jan9.185347.9555@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
   pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

   >Any culture with a weak work ethic is vulnerable to the
   >oversimplification that there are just two truth values.

   That's a beautiful-looking generalisation, but I don't understand
   quite what it means or how you arrive at it. Can you expand on it
   a bit?

Yeah, me too, me too.
--
		Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu
     Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
	    3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
     "Oh God, please help me be civil in tongue, pure in thought, and able
      to resist the temptation to laugh uncontrollably.  Amen." -- Rob T
Newsgroups: sci.logic