Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1634 news.admin:1588
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!daisy!nsc!pyramid!decwrl!labrea!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!princeton!phoenix!greg
From: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,news.admin
Subject: Re: Forgeries
Message-ID: <1709@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 11 Feb 88 04:46:02 GMT
References: <1368@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <1701@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <14347@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>
Reply-To: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 62

In article <14347@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Stop calling me Fred) writes:
>) >gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU () writes:
>) >>... post a large number which is the
>) >>product of two large enough (say, ~10^30) primes or pseudoprimes.

>) caasnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Clifford Adams) writes:
>) >	A very good try.  But this method can have a vicious flaw.

>greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) writes:
>) A PERFECT try. It has no vicious flaw.

>Gods, what a simpleton!

What an asshole!

>Suppose somebody reuses Gene's own numbers?  Which article is the
>true one?  Whichever one Gene says is real?  Then how is this in any
>way better than just ASKING THE PURPORTED AUTHOR BY EMAIL whether an
>article is "genuine"?  It isn't.

Gene uses different numbers for each article. Then if there's a
duplicate, he who can supply the factors gets to call the shots as to
which article is genuine. I suppose that all this is beyond you. You
probably think that if you just keep working HARD ENOUGH, you'll
FINALLY be able to trisect the angle, and all those snobby
mathematicians who have been pretending to know the truth will get
their comeuppance. IF you believe the forger can receive Gene's mail
AND forge outgoing mail under Gene's name, THEN there would be no
security to merely asking the purported autor by email which articles
are genuine. But you are ignoring completely the trapdoor function of
the primes: If Gene 1) uses a different composite for each article 2)
offers to authenticate by mail, and 3) does not keep files of his
primes, but only hardcopy that he carries around with him, he's safe.

>) Does EVERYONE understand how this works now?

Evidently, everyone except Matt Crawford.

>) Kudos to Gene for reminding the net of one of the uses of math.

>And to Greg for showing how blind, kneejerk applications of
>mathematics can lead to a false sense of security or power.

Power? Who's talking about power? Only Matt Crawford, who evidently is
afraid enough of mathematics, for god only knows what reason, to bitch
about its uses. What is "blind" and "kneejerk" about it? I suppose to
use the method you have to know what primes are and what
multiplication is, so it seems mysterious to you, and the fact that
it's a relatively simple method that works is galling to you (hence
"kneejerk"?), but that's something you're just going to have to live
with while the world goes along merrily without you. What is the basis
for your irrational fear of mathematics? Did you get your prick caught
in a sliderule once?

Learn to count.


-- 
...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!greg


                                 Greg Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 08540