You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] cdinvb 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Yep. My breaks are prolonged. And I bother to log in . . not very often. - The argument is that all processes are deterministic, however we imperfect beings lack the ability to gather sufficient or relevant information. We make models that estimate outcomes. And then there's cryptographic process, and I wish that I were not pushing 70, and this came more readily to me b/c it's fascinating. In particular asymmetric process: public v private key. regards - c

0
1

[–] TheBuddha [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

You're a bit older than I, but not much. In my academic career, I had very little exposure to cryptography. The reality is that computers lacked the power to do it well. So, we didn't.

That's a space that has changed greatly in the decades since.

0
1

[–] cdinvb 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

And then there's Ivar Ekeland, if you are interested in a curious survey. The Broken Dice, and other titles. I had no exposure to cryptography, just the engineering/science sequence that I'd started b/c I was reading about how thinking about Nature changed from the time of Galileo to, say, 1800. Newton's "I do not feign hypotheses," etc. I was in liberal arts. The math was flat fascinating, and I could do it. So I kept taking another class, and another. - I read Bruce Schneier. Also scan news (less and less lately), reading with astonishment that systems are secured with plain-text passwords. Or unsalted. C'mon! - I'm still using HP calculators which came out back then. At this point it's a matter of perversity.