Xref: utzoo alt.flame:1627 news.admin:1583
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!hc!oddjob!matt
From: matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Stop calling me Fred)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,news.admin
Subject: Re: Forgeries
Message-ID: <14347@oddjob.UChicago.EDU>
Date: 10 Feb 88 22:10:45 GMT
References: <1368@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <1701@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fort Mudge Perloo and Fire Brigade
Lines: 33

) >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!

) Read my lips, you innumerate slob: He uses a DIFFERENT composite
) number for EACH posting. ... if you decide to doubt Gene's posting
) the assertion that shit stinks, you ... email Gene --
) hwereupon he sends the FACTORS of the number which is uniquely
) associated with the article you were worried about.

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.

) Does EVERYONE understand how this works now?

Yes, everyone except Greg Nowak.

) 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.

				Matt Crawford