Yeah, I blame autocorrect tho. It’s gotten a bit egotistical of late. ðŸ˜‰

]]>Thanks for the link! It’s cool research, of which I wasn’t aware.

The bias introduced by strategies for prime selection are a good example of what I described above: they can narrow the “search space”, perhaps by a few orders of magnitude. But even with such reduction, it remains impossibly large for simple approaches like trial division (even if a table of candidate primes were possible, the best it could do would be to make trial division less costly).

The security implication of this research is that an attacker may be able to make an educated guess as to which software package was used for key generation.

It doesn’t enable an attacker to decrypt ciphertexts, or to infer the secret key.

]]>See

https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/svenda

(got best paper award at USENIX Security 2016)

I have a fair idea of the kind of expertise and effort required. Discrimination cases may be similar too. I know enough about this field I could advise him although have my limits which require other professional expertise to support. Most of the broad brush issues are already known but the number of experts who are able to deal with the sometimes very involved nuances and working out are similarly restricted. This is very infuriating.

If I said there were probably less than a dozen people in the world who could follow the complete discussion this would be fair. I have met or teleconferenced with a few who have a public profile but even they find it hard going.

The media aren’t hostile as such but want their chicken shrink wrapped and oven ready.I was offered a documentary but had to turn this down as they weren’t interested in the broadhseet issues. I would have been relegated to being eye candy and completely blown my right to a private life. This is fine if you want to gawp at my legs but not much more.

@Alyer Babtu

Oh please don’t! I get buried in detail enough as it is.

]]>very long “proof”

(My favorite) case in point, the proof of the classification of finite simple groups, a gem and a joy and a very long slog.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_simple_groups

Nicely expounded in 3+ volumes published by the American Mathematical Society. Good for many lazy rainy afternoons with a pot of tea.

]]>I lack knowledge to assess the extent of age discrimination in mathematics.

However, when you wrote “laziness,” perhaps you weren’t aware that the work would need to be done by a mathematician already expert in some of the special topics (i.e., from a worldwide population of perhaps only a few), and consume full professional attention for possibly a year, or even several years.

It’s understandable before committing to such a project, to want to have some confidence that it will be fruitful.

My guess is that for de Branges, his “flying solo” may be a bigger obstacle than his age, to evaluation of his claimed proof. He doesn’t have collaborators, so nobody is intimate with the foundations on which his argument rests.

]]>3+5=8*5=0x28+7f80 =7fa8

7fa8-7f9b =3

Though?

]]>de Branges perhaps has more “street cred” than the new claimant, having achieved a really important proof while in his 50s, and having focused much of his career on topics closely related to RH. However, his claims of proof have yet to convince his colleagues, and the analysis of a very long “proof” based on highly specialized work done by de Branges over the years is a very costly undertaking.

I noticed this when I read about this news a couple of days ago. While I appreciate thinsg take effort I do wonder if ageism plays a role in their laziness. I kind of experience something similar with sexism. It’s really annoying having to pull a short skirt on to get men to do anything but then mens minds are never properly on the task at hand when this happens. Just because people are mathematicians (or any other profession for that matter) doesn’t mean they are completely professional when need be. Far from it.

]]>If I understood the gist of your earlier comment, it’s about intentional weakening of supposedly “random” generation. I think it’s widely understood that this can be done in ways that make a break computationally feasible.

My argument is about typical crypto implementations, which I presume to be intended as strong but which are likely to suffer from typical weaknesses in well-meant (but not catastrophically flawed) PRNGs, which can result in dramatic reductions in the search space … while still leaving it vastly beyond computational feasibility.

Having a layman’s fuzzy notion of the Riemann Hypothesis (more accurately conjecture, but everybody calls it RH), I’m grateful for the link you provided, and will follow with interest assessments of the claimed proof.

You may be aware that another elderly mathematician, Louis de Branges, has been claiming proof of RH since 2004, and more recently proof of GRH.

de Branges perhaps has more “street cred” than the new claimant, having achieved a really important proof while in his 50s, and having focused much of his career on topics closely related to RH. However, his claims of proof have yet to convince his colleagues, and the analysis of a very long “proof” based on highly specialized work done by de Branges over the years is a very costly undertaking.

If Michael Atiyah’s claimed proof is a as simple as he says, mathematicians will probably be able to find the first error in a fairly short time ðŸ˜‰

If there is no error, it will probably be the most important proof in the last 25 years.

Though a proof would be an earthquake in the world of mathematics (it’s impressively common for papers to say “if RH is true then we can prove the following result…”), as far as I am aware its significance for cryptography would probably be modest.

There might well be some algorithm speed-ups enabled by such a proof, but I guess not enough to “alter the landscape.”

]]>Azidoazide azide contains a lot of energy! It’s a shame it cannot be harnessed for batteries. Cars and mobile phones area long way down any use case scenario due to sensitive handling requirements. All you have to do is look at it wrong and it goes bang.

]]>