Would appear to be a short snippet of the longer and much more interesting.

Yes, indeed it is. I try to link to short videos. Watched this one as well. And watched other topics in math that I had no business watching. Curiosity, I guess. Fascinating fellow.

]]>And Something on prime numbers as a bonus.

Would appear to be a short snippet of the longer and much more interesting.

]]>but I'm not sure now.

I think I found it. I still can't find the puzzle that he solved, but this was the first video I watched about him.

And Something on prime numbers as a bonus.

We have successfully invested in the S&P 100 using a variant of our usual strategy, viz.,

One all for all, and

All one for one

Athos, Porthos, Aramis and I developed it playing cards while waiting for the next skirmish with the Cardinal.

]]>0) "umbilical stem cell therapy"

2) I'm not in any hurry to jump off of the nearest high altitude cliff nor chasm.

3) https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Mogwai_(Chinese_culture)

Sincerely,

R2D2 knew exactly what he was doing; C3PO was wrong.

]]>Forgot to mention.

I do believe that the unknown theorem could be related to Quadratic Reciprocity.

Where Quadratic Reciprocity is a subset of a larger theorem.

In theory, if if, then then, Quadratic Reciprocity would not, in theory, help in the odd prime exponent case of FLT.

But, there are interesting patterns in the odd primes.

I have zero reason to believe that Fermat did not find something.

But, I can believe he never wrote about it.

The second sentence was meant to begin "Probably you know that Andrew Wiles' famous 1995 partial proof of the *Taniyama-Shimura-Weil conjecture* was motivated almost entirely ..."

I also misspelled Weil later on -- it has only one 'l'

]]>I see you added another comment, while I was typing :)

Probably you know that Andrew Wiles' famous 1995 partial proof of the was motivated almost entirely by his boyhood dream of proving "Fermat's Last Theorem."

Because FLT had long resisted all efforts to crack it, and had (for centuries) no visible connection to any important or general problem, no professional mathematician could devote a major effort to proving (or disproving) FLT without destroying his/her reputation: FLT was a territory strictly reserved for amateurs and crackpots.

It was seeing Gerhard Frey draw his connection between Taniyama-Shimura-Weill (as the conjecture became when it was made more precise) that "closed the circuit" for Wiles: he knew that he *could* work on FLT, because it was now a Very Important Problem. [If I recall correctly, Wiles was in the audience when Frey gave a talk presenting his derivation.]

The part of this that proves the truth of the observation you made in your closing paragraph, is that nobody else in the world made such an intensive attack on the Taniyama-Shimura-Weill conjecture, because of a widely shared belief that finding such a proof was simply beyond current mathematical knowledge.

It was Wiles's "Don Quixote" determination to solve FLT, that propelled him to do (through about nine years of grueling effort, mostly in secret) what his colleagues believed to be unattainable.

_______________________________________

When Gauss wrote those words, he perhaps had in mind the Goldbach conjecture as a salient example. It's so simple that any child with a few years' math education can understand it; it seems almost certain to be true; and it has resisted all efforts toward solution.

Gauss was born less than 35 years after the conjecture arrived in mathematical history. At age 277, the conjecture remains a fortress no one has conquered.

]]>Thank you for sharing that longer excerpt, which I have not seen before.

Obviously, the interpretation you put forward is the correct one!

As Gauss observed there, "one cannot predict to what extent one will succeed" ... progress in mathematics is notoriously uneven and non-linear. There are enough examples of problems in which progress was stalled for decades, or even centuries, before new discoveries or perspectives led to some major advance.

Even if his "old ideas for a great extension" wouldn't have been fruitful, it would be fascinating for the history of mathematics to know what lines of investigation he had in mind. I wonder whether his notebooks or correspondence left enough clues, to learn what those old ideas were?

]]>Another remark of Gauss, which illustrates his idea of the character of mathematics

“ A great part of its higher arithmetic theories derives an additional charm from the peculiarity that important propositions, with the impress of simplicity on them, are often easily discovered by induction, and yet are of so profound a character that we cannot find the demonstrations till after many vain attempts and even then, when we do succeed, it is often by some tedious and artificial process, while the simple methods may long remain concealed.”

The simple methods become available when the right objects and the proper definitions have been understood at last. The profound theorems, those with important consequences, are proved then almost trivially. Fermat’s theorem may not be so profound in what is states as in what it touches on. In working to provide a proof many results with broad applicability were uncovered.

]]>Thanks for mentioning Olbers. It led to his link [1] with an extended quotation of Gauss’s reply

“ I confess that Fermat's Theorem as an isolated proposition has very little interest for me, for a multitude of such theorems can easily be set up, which one could neither prove nor disprove. But I have been stimulated by it to bring our again several old ideas for a great extension of the theory of numbers. Of course, this theory belongs to the things where one cannot predict to what extent one will succeed in reaching obscurely hovering distant goals. A happy star must also rule, and my situation and so manifold distracting affairs of course do not permit me to pursue such meditations as in the happy years 1796-1798 when I created the principal topics of my Disquisitiones arithmeticae. But I am convinced that if good fortune should do more than I expect, and make me successful in some advances in that theory, even the Fermat theorem will appear in it only as one of the least interesting corollaries.

{In reply to Olbers' attempt in 1816 to entice him to work on Fermat's Theorem. The hope Gauss expressed for his success was never realised.}”

Gauss seems to be thinking of what the right theory would be, in which the nature if Fermat’s theorem will be understood.

As you say, not realized until 175 years later :)

]]>When the Paris Academy offered a prize for solution of the Fermat conjecture, astronomer Heinrich Olbers wrote to Gauss to tell him of the prize, and to encourage him to pursue it.

Two weeks later, Gauss replied "... I confess that Fermat's Last Theorem as an isolated proposition has very little interest for me, for I could easily lay down a multitude of such propositions, which one could neither prove nor disprove."

It seems logical to me to interpret his phrase (in English translation, of course) "as an isolated proposition" to mean that Gauss thought that FLT "would be a particular instance of a general theory."

My interpretation has always been that Gauss didn't have a vision of what general theory (or greater problem) FLT might be a component of. Which interpretation is more appropriate, I don't know.

_________________________________________

In the latter part of the 20th century, the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture (1957) became one of the most important open questions in mathematics.

Between 1986 and 1990, work started by Gerhard Frey and completed by Jean-Pierre Serre and Ken Ribet established that if the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture is true, then so must the Fermat conjecture be true.

So, roughly 175 years would pass between Gauss's statement, and FLT being linked to an important mathematical theory.

]]>"Nobody knows whether Fermat actually had a valid proof ... but I'd happily bet all the money I could raise that his "proof" was mistaken."

A lot of people came to that conclusion.

I decided that Fermat purposely did not give the proof, to leave as a puzzle.

I also considered that the comment about the margin being too small, wzs a hint about the number 2.

Then I considered Fermat's little theorem.

And binomial coefficents. In particular, the case of the power being an odd prime.

So, proving that no solutions to

x^N + y^N = z^N

Splits into two cases:

N is a power of 2 greater than 2

Or

N is an odd prime p.

Fermat already had covered the first case (N being 4, 8, 16, etc).

And Fermat certainly would have used his little theorem for N being an odd prime p.

Those were the hints I followed.

And, via a lot of huge binomial expansions on Greenbar...

Years later, I got to the following forms for the bases, x, y, and z:

x = pdef + e^p

y = pdef + f^p

z = pdef + e^p + f^p

p,d,e,f all coprime.

(still not done at that point)

Fermat either had another theorem he never revealed, or he just could do seriously long equations in his mind.

But, I suspect he had another theorem that he knew about, but never mentioned.

And, he could combine the little theorem with the unknown theorem, and easily conclude that he was correct without paper.

Somehow. I do not believe that he made a mistake in his logic.

]]>I can’t recall where I saw and can’t find on the internet the remark by Gauss.

A nice overview of the history of FLT

http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Fermat's_last_theorem.html

As I recall the story, someone sent Gauss the Fermat conjecture (it's only been a theorem for about 25 years) in a letter, and Gauss replied not long afterward, writing something like "one could lay down any number of such propositions, which one could neither prove nor disprove."

My interpretation of this has always been that Gauss probably looked into the matter, and concluded that (a) settling the problem would be very deep and difficult, and (b) it was much more a curiosity or puzzle, than a problem of great significance. Great questions (like the Riemann Hypothesis) bear on other mathematical questions; until the Modularity Conjecture in the 20th century, the Fermat conjecture didn't promise to shed light on anything else.

However Gauss came to his decision not to pursue the question, he possibly spared himself embarrassments such as those suffered by later mathematicians (including French savants Lamé and Cauchy) when they confronted this formidable challenge.

Nobody knows whether Fermat actually had a valid proof ... but I'd happily bet all the money I could raise that his "proof" was mistaken.

]]>I had seen in the older discussion, that you used a "width graph" to quickly verify the correct answer to "Monty Hall." To me, graphic representation is the way to go wherever feasible.

I'm sure that cognitive styles are an important factor in how best to present information, or to represent a problem as an aid to reasoning about it.

I consider myself to be not only a visual thinker, but more specifically geometric, so representation by visual shapes and topologies is a big help for my understanding.

I can manage the manipulation of abstract symbols at some very modest level, but I've never been fluent at it.

___________________________________________

One of my favorite math books ever was written in what I call "comic book" form. Every page -- from start to finish -- had two large illustrations (in the great majority of cases, plots of functions) with two or three sentences of text beneath each figure.

I had been struggling to wrap my head around an area of applied math, and when I found this book the light shone for me very quickly!

___________________________________________

Another book which covered a very specific (but essential) subset of this material, which was in more conventional math textbook form, had a very clear presentation on the topic, just a few paragraphs long.

But I needed to work my way through those paragraphs very slowly and methodically about five times (over a period of perhaps two days) before I felt that I had a secure handle on the idea.

___________________________________________

It's fascinating to me, that the most distinguished "Monty Hall" nay-sayer was Paul Erdős, one of the 20th century's star mathematicians.

Probability problems are often surprising or counterintuitive, and I could imagine a mathematician specializing in other areas making this kind of elementary mistake ... but Erdős did significant work related to probability.

To think that he might have avoided this error, using a simple diagram ...

]]>Strange! I wrongly attributed this:

For example the integral theorems, Green’s...

I've been on the road for some time. Attribution shouldn't be that hard, but I'm tired. Still about 300 miles to go. The final segment of this "tour"!

PS: probably because @Clive Robinson talks about electromagnetism often...

]]>Or instead of using their intuition and "superior knowledge" had actually"graphed it out"

If I remember, that's how Marlyn Vos Savant said she did. It's also what Richard Feynman did with his diagrams. As they say: a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps we should learn something applicable to security from that.

had the correct answer been published by a man.

Hard to say.

For example the integral theorems, Green’s...

That's the difference between "knowing" and "understanding" ;)

@SpaceLifeForm,

4 years?

Approximately. Always gave up, until one day, I sat down and finished it.

Misses by 2

That's not how the game is played :)

Apparently Gauss did not work much on Fermat’s Last Theorem, remarking that if true it would be a particular instance of a general theory. That is pretty much how it turned out.

It happens a lot in mathematics, in fact is usual, that the fact of something is established, but the scientific proof comes much later, once the real nature and context of the fact is understood.

For example the integral theorems, Green’s, Stokes’s, Divergence, Gauss’s, are true statements but not really theorems, since the commensurate scientific middle is not made use of. The real theorem (we think!) is a result about the missing more general object, and which is very simple to establish and includes the classical results as special cases. This not a case of generaization for generalization’s sake, but deepened understanding of the true scientific question.

See Spivak’s book on calculus of several variables.

]]>4 years?

It took me 23 years on FLT.

I beat Wiles by 2 years.

My proof is pure Algebra.

Ok, not pure. Lots of Modular too.

It's in a box of Greenbar.

Have not cracked Beal yet, but I'm sure it is true.

Short hint:

Minimal possible solution is

5^3 + 6^3 = 7^3

341 vs 343

Misses by 2

The proof is indirect.

]]>I wonder to what extent the scornful dismissals written by trained mathematicians would have been different, had the correct answer been published by a man.

Or instead of using their intuition and "superior knowledge" had actually "graphed it out" on a bit of paper with a pencil which is what I did, and came up with the right answer in a few minutes (most of that time was spent scratching my head trying to work out what they saw that I didn't).

Sometimes it's best just to get back to basics using the simplest of tools to sanity check your thinking...

It's a lesson we should teach all children when they are around eight as it will serve them well for the rest of their lives.

Even today simple tools help you get your head around a problem.

Take the integration or differentiation of a sin wave it causes problems for lots of adolescents. I've found a bit of clear perspex/plexiglass and a soft drinks can with a red and blue dot at 90degrees works well (and you get to drink it afterwards ;-)

I was reminded a month or so back by a friend that "graphical proofs" work better than "logical proofs" for most people as for "mathmatical proofs" don't go there ;-)

]]>sum-and-product "impossible" puzzle, on which I burned up an inexcusable number of hours

It took me four years to solve. On and off. A protocol analyst / Cryptographer (now teaching at a university in the UK) whom I worked with, solved it on a cross Atlantic plane trip.

I may have commented about it in the past.

Moral of the story: saying "I don't know" is saying too much. That's why spooks say: "I cannot confirm or deny" or "no comments".

]]>It was fun to be reminded of the Monty Hall problem (I was one of the many who, back in 1990, completely failed to recognize the correct answer as such). I suppose it remains one of the simplest reasoning problems which highly educated people get wrong a considerable majority of the time ... I wonder to what extent the scornful dismissals written by trained mathematicians would have been different, had the correct answer been published by a man.

Looking at Wael's links to a past discussion introduced me to the sum-and-product "impossible" puzzle, on which I burned up an inexcusable number of hours in the last few days. [An impossible puzzle is one whose problem statement seems to provide too little information to find a solution.]

In my first attack, I failed to apply the "sum not greater than 100" constraint at a certain stage, and didn't get a unique solution. Now I can nap a little :)

]]>My thinking is eight words with at least a nine digit number.

In part it depends on your dictionary size you select yoir words from. But 2^10 or 1024 words would be not unusual. So assum Hex digits gives you 2^4 bits and with eight words you get,

2^84 = 2^16 x (2^10)^8

At 84 bit's equivalent it sounds kind of just about acceptable.

But...,

Unfortunately, hard for the user to remember.

Yup, watch the entropy tumble when users get their "diceware word list" and rearange the word order to make a more memorable pass phrase. They might also get a couple of lists to see if one is more to there liking.

You lose bits fast doing things like that.

As a rough rule of thumb in a human generated passphrase you say 2^4 for the first letter then 2^2 for the next couple of letters and then 2^1.4 from then out...

So 2^8 for first three letters of a word rather than 26^3 ~= 2^14.1 for three random letters. Then each letter there after in a sentance giving around 2^1.4 --rather than the random ~=2^4.7-- means to get 84bit equivalent is a natural language sentance with ~57 letters in it rather than 18 for a random letter string.

Again the entropy drops like crazy if the sentance is well known from a, "public body of work" like a poem, quote or from a book or song.

58 letters being the length of the first part of the above sentance, to the comma, is something that can be fairly easily seen, is NOT something the average human is going to be able to easily remember. Each attempt to make it more memorable (or less turgid ;-) is going to knock bits of the entropy count like "pins flying in a bowling alley on competition night".

Thus a combination of techniques needs to be used. Adding random numbers takes it up around ~2^3 for each which is a quick gain[1]. Likewise random or semi random capitalisation of letters adds bits of entropy. But there is also deliberate "misspellings" even if it's using "y" instead of "i" or "Q" instead of "u" racks up the brut force trys quite quickly, taking the 2^1.4 back up towards 2^4.7 of each random letter.

But the honest answer to the problem is,

- Something you know authentication

Is broken when it comes to humans and machine adversaries.

It's why I've thought about other systems for a number of years. The first part of which is to "rethink the why, the how and the what".

Passwords come from an age of mechanical teletypes on the end of serial lines and later dial up lines and even VDU's to some mainframe in an air conditioned room you like as not had no idea where it was. We just don't roll that way any more. The serial lines have either gone with "local devices" or been replaced with semi-secure TLS over a radio or wired network connection if more than arms length away to fully remote.

Local devices are where we can apply a second layer of authentication "something we have" which is why a lot of people have gone down the "Password manager on a phone" route. The problem is such devices are "hackable" and "grabable" and worse as is seen with LEO behaviour "something you are" is nolonger an authentication factor under your control.

So are there other authentication factors to replace it. The simple answer is yes, we have "location" and "time" we can consider.

The problem with them is that they are not just "restricting in use" they quickly become "obvious in use" if used regularly. Thus we need to add in another asspect which is a "hierarchy of authentication". That is we have authentication based on their frequency of use and usage.

Thus a swipe of a finger on the screen is fine for making 911 calls but not answering a phone or making a call or text. For that it would be a swipe of the finger against the fingerprint reader, but not for seeing previous texts or listening to previous recordings. For that the entry of a short PIN would be added. The use of timeouts as well with longer PINs for doing other day to day activities. But you also need a "deadman's switch" which could be anything like swiping your finger in the wrong direction or not far enough. At which point the phone is returned to timed out fully locked for say 30 seconds with a count down timer, if you don't enter the long pin then it goes into security locked. This is where being at a "time" and "place" as well as using a different long PIN/PASSWORD comes into play.

In essence you build up security layers that need more entropy, but where ever possible it's of the "something you know" variety, which currently LEO's etc can not grab[2], which is also the reason for timeouts bumping up security. They can be set so you only have to resist duress for a short time thus the XKCD "$5 wrench" attack nolonger works.

[1] It's less than you would think because way to many people think "733t speak is n34t"

[2] Various people believe that in the near future "brain wave analysis" techniques will with AI, be able to "read projected thoughts", sufficiently well to enable people to control machines like wheelchairs. Obviously that would also enable control of a "phantom keyboard" to be used as an input device. Whist this may be possible in the near term and some work suggests it is, it still leaves the rather vexed question of "reading peoples minds". Some people have postulated that fast imaging of a brain combined with AI technology will alow private thoughts or information to be read out of a persons mind, thus rendering "something you know" available to LEO's. Whilst personally I'm skeptical, the laws of physics does not prevent it...

horse,battery...

My thinking is eight words with at least a nine digit number.

All words must be minimum 5 characters.

Case sensitive.

Total bits, 49*6ish. So maybe at around 128 bits of entropy. Maybe.

But, certainly, attackable.

Unfortunately, hard for the user to remember.

]]>https://www.dw.com/en/phages-bacterial-eaters-from-georgia-to-fight-antibiotic-resistance/a-51350421

*That is not US State of Georgia, but independent country.

My humble guess is that AI has huge potential to develop particular phages. I doubt Georgia has such tools available, but if resources of US (HARPA)and Georgia combined, it could provide breakthrough for health securty.

Read the whole article: Belgium and France are on the way already.

]]>https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50151545

"Lidar emits laser beams and measures how long they take to bounce back from objects, and this provides so-called point-clouds to draw 3D maps of the surroundings.

These can be analyzed by computers to recognize objects as small as a football or as big as a football field and can measure distances very accurately.

Lidar (light detection and ranging) technology is not new - the Apollo 15 mission used it in 1971 to map the Moon. But its breakthrough came in the mid-2000s when Darpa, the research division of the US military, started its annual Grand Challenge, a race for autonomous vehicles.

David Hall who took part in the first race in 2004, soon realized Lidar's potential. He used the manufacturing capacity of his company Velodyne to build them for other participants.

By 2007 five of the six teams to finish the race employed Velodyne's system. These rotating lasers, so-called spinners, were mounted on car-roofs to provide 360-degree vision.

Autonomous vehicles have other ways of sensing what's around them, but they all have weaknesses.

◾Cameras: Mr Musk's choice of sensor are cheap and can identify signs and road markings, but they struggle in fog and are not good for measuring distance

◾Ultrasonic sensors: Originally developed during World War One for submarine warfare these use sound waves with a high frequency inaudible to humans. but their range is limited and hence are mainly employed for parking

◾Radar: This is good for measuring the distance and speed of moving objects, but is not much good at detail - it would struggle to differentiate between a human and a small tree.

One of the start-ups hoping to do just that is Blickfeld launched in Munich in 2017. "We entered the market late, but the advantage was that we could assess it," says co-founder Florian Petit.

"So we opted against the revolutionary approaches of many Silicon Valley firms," and instead wondered "how low can we push the price for a mass-produced system?" he says.

Blickfeld uses off-the-shelf lasers and sensors. Its main improvement has been to design an unusually large mirror, directing more light onto the photo-detector and thus increasing the range of Lidar to 250m (800ft) even with a relatively cheap laser.

Its Lidar is small enough to fit into the rear mirror of a car and Blickfeld's new assembly line will produce a few thousand units a year. It claims this could be scaled up to an annual capacity of 200,000 - with a possible price tag of just $275 (£210).

===>Blickfeld already sells Lidars to various firms. They are used to survey cars for parking facilities and traffic control, to run so-called sense-and-avoid systems preventing drone collisions and to monitor fences at labs, banks or airports"

The Planctotuethis Squid is fascinating in how ephemeral it looks. I couldn't have guessed it was a squid - would have guessed, at best, that it was rather a rare sea horse.

The Planctotuethis reminds me greatly of the Eurasian Deciduous Octopus - not related to the Pacific Northwest tree octopus (Octopus paxarbolis). The Deciduous Octopus, while rare, is not considered endangered, as with the Paxabolis ( https://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ ).

]]>www.hackread.com/police-confiscate-surveillance-van-with-hacking-tools/

]]>On a twitter post, it's been suggested that the XKCD "horse,battery..." passphrase system at 44bits is in effect "toast",

]]>I noticed this on "Boing Boing"

https://boingboing.net/2019/11/21/teach-stem-through-space-comba.html

And you can by it through their store,

https://store.boingboing.net/brands/force-flyers

Or you can see further info on,

https://9to5toys.com/2017/11/06/lego-force-flyers-diy-drone/

Not only will it teach tots to fly drones, that six axis controler can be used with "servo amps" to fly a much bigger drone...

The hard part of building a drone these days is not the airframe or the propulsion system, but the control system to ensure the drone will fly.

Whilst those with a graduate level education in variouus engineering and other hard sciences can with information available on the Internet build a control system from scratch and write the necessary code, they are very unlikely to do so, or do so for others.

This means that those who spurn formal education as part of their belief systems as many terrorists do would need to find another route to making weapons beyond "bike shop mechanics" who can also maintain AK47's.

Such a toy being very inexpensive and probably untracable unlike off the shelf proffessional drones could provide them with the needed control system. And by using artisanal techniques practiced up untill the end of the Victorian era when engineering science took over. They could using the "bodge a bit that breaks" style craftmanship that gave us coach wheels, leaf springs right through to steam engines, get their skills up to 5kg payload drone building.

]]>I forgot...

It’s specified in the “Calculus HandbuchforWait-staff”, in the section “Tipsfor indefinite integrals”.

+1 :)

Das "Buch", eh?

Nobody tips 17.5% in Europe :)

I believe that is vos Savant’sCorollary: It is unknown what the language Monty will use in 2030 will look like, but it will be called Fortran.

There're no FORTRAN compilers in in graves... I believe this is Monty Hall's **Coronary**!

]]>

the indefinite integral class

It’s specified in the “Calculus Handbuch for Wait-staff”, in the section “Tips for indefinite integrals”.

I learned

I salute you, and I stand corrected. I should have said “The only thing most people learn ...”

there are no Monty C++

I believe that is vos Savant’s Corollary: It is unknown what the language Monty will use in 2030 will look like, but it will be called Fortran.

]]>The constant is at least +17.5%

I must have slept through the indefinite integral class. +17.5% of what? :)

The only thing we learn from the Monty Hall problem is that we learn nothing from the Monty Hall problem.

I learned not to trust "intuition" to solve trivial-looking questions!

But question - is there a corresponding Monty Python problem, and if not, why not ?

Now that's a profound question! The kind of question I like -- you came to the right place, chief! Of course there is! Just keep changing doors :)

Why? Because there are no Monty C++ problems?

(You didn't ask for the "why", but I gave it anyway)

]]>Yes, Arthur has lot of interesting ww2 comm stuff there :)

]]>Most laser mics can be detected with black and white cameras, the old school was running water for the white noise, but a speaker that does something that only mics suffer from, with still been able to have a conversion, or a high random source for a speaker can be used.

The ten picture paper had a 25% encryption, like Rc5 look for the one char instead of two hex, now days the flip it to 75% but 0,100% is easy 50% hard.

The Vhf I'm guessing is the values in the left side of the picture.

]]>How NSA weakened PX-1000 crypto.

www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/philips/px1000/nsa.htm

This pocket telex machine was third interesting item on this exhibition.

www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/philips/px1000/

But overall, i have never been in one room that has so many Enigmas

there at the same time :)

Re: waitress math link

The constant is at least +17.5%. :)

Ibidem, supra - The only thing we learn from the Monty Hall problem is that we learn nothing from the Monty Hall problem.

But question - is there a corresponding Monty Python problem, and if not, why not ?

]]>Thanks for the links.]]>

Did you spot the "night fighter" high VHF / low UHF radar that was in some of the photographs?

The displays are not just crypto kit, some are even more interesting such as radio navigation ;-)

Ghost ships is today's must read

Yes the link was interesting with regards to the on going "wireless war" of navigation systems but needs more technical meat to chew on.

This however struck me as quite funny,

As you probably remember, I've been saying for quite some time "carrier groups" had their 15minutes of fame during WWII and are now just very very expensive "sitting ducks". My guess would be this is possibly the least interesting of the Chinese stand off anti-carrier-group weapons. I suspect the already have sub surface nuclear mine capability, and puting something up into space would certainly be well within the Chinese Military Weapons design capabilities (they are atleast as good if not better than US at this). The down side of this airborn weapons system is, as the article points out, that it is far from stealthy and would be detected within a hundred miles at most of China's coast.

Which suggests there are other "Anti-Radiation Missile" (xARM) systems to be deployed. An effective Hypersonic missile would easily take out SigInt aircraft such as the RC-135 "Rivet Joint" and it's successors, also the likes of "Side-Looking Airborne Radar" (SLAR) and "Airborne Early Warning and Control"(AEW&C) systems --many of which are Boeing products-- would likewise be sitting ducks to hypersonic missiles with Anti-Radiation capabilities. With a six thousand NM range it far exceeds the range of anything current US carrier groups have to protect themselves with. Which leaves open the "sub" problem. Put simply submarines especially those that sit on the bottom are extraordinarily difficult to detect at the best of times, as such they are the real "Projections of power" for any super power as are some space based weapons systems which might account for why both China and India publically demonstrated their anti-satellite missile systems. One stratagem come an actual shooting war would be to blow up every satellite you can reach, thus filling orbits with debris to create a chain reaction that would go on to destroy other much smaller space based vehicles such as "cube-sats" and likewise "close space" to further launches in the resulting ablation cascade named the Kessler Syndrome.

But moving on, there is the goings on of the Spanish "UC Global" company and the documents that are coming out about how they with US assistance over came quite modern anti-surveillance systems,

The "big take away" from it is not only do you need good anti-surveillance, you also need to be "dynamic and random" in the way you use them. Sitting in the same place twice alowed more sensitive high dynamic range sensors to be put close to the surveillance target thus getting a 1/(r^2) advantage over the anti-surveillance systems.

However one question the article does not answer is what Tech the US Gov gave UC Global to get around the anti-surveillance working on the "laser mics".

]]>this was interesting

www.cryptomuseum.com/crypto/philips/spendex50/index.htm

]]>www.cdvandt.org/secr-comms-3-16-11'19.htm

]]>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473442

"Millions of Spanish mobile phone users are being tracked this week as part of the government's census, in a move that critics fear is a step closer towards spying on the population.

Statistics agency INE insists the eight-day project is anonymous and aimed at getting a better idea of where Spaniards go during the day and night.

The statistics agency wants to track the movement of Spaniards over eight days, first to their places of work or study from 18-21 November and later on days off and holidays. The second part of the experiment will be done on Sunday 24 November, Christmas Day and two days next summer.

The three companies - Movistar, Vodafone and Orange - cover 78.7% of Spain's mobile phone users and are to be paid a total of €500,000 (£430,000; $550,000) for taking part in the study.

The country will be divided up into 3,200 cells with more than 5,000 residents, and the operators will work out how many phones are within each cell at various times of day. They will analyze phones between midnight and 06:00 to find out where people live and then later between 09:00 and 18:00.

"We will know for example how many mobiles there are at 17:00 on a particular street in any city of more than 15,000 people, but no more than that," INE told the El Confidencial website."

Ghost ships is today's must read. File under "signal integrity."

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/11/links-11-19-19.html

...

Ghost ships, crop circles, and soft gold: A GPS mystery in Shanghai MIT Technology Review

...

A Spy Complex Revealed The Intercept (WB).

...

Embarrassing mistake: Chinese magazine ‘accidentally’ reveals new top secret weapon NY Herald

...

Pentagon Procurement and the Laws of Physics POGO

A massive scandal: how Assange, his doctors, lawyers and visitors were all spied on for the U.S. La Repubblica (Bugs Bunny). Very good, well worth a read.

Our Famously Free Press

‘No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News NYT. Two words: “Judy Miller.” Everybody know who Judy Miller was?

Boeing

Boeing 787 Dreamliner: “Hundreds of Defective Parts” Ralph Nader Radio Hour

...

The Dark Psychology of Social Networks The Atlantic (DL). Come on, man. What’s “dark” about “moral grandstanding”?

...

but I guess my mind thought it was more like 'wail'. :|

Yes! Click the link on my name to hear a proper pronunciation (click the non-English sound symbol.) It has several meanings, one of them is 'Sanctuary'.

My impression is that that's his actual name :)It's unfamiliar to us, but I believe a not uncommon name where Arabic is spoken.

True. If it's so "unfamiliar to us", why does TSA treat me like a king, huh? Free massage, and all ;)

He has confirmed it in a number of ways

I did.

accidently on one occasion as no doubt he still remembers due to his embarrassment at the time

I remember I stuck my email address in the URL box by mistake. stupid autofill!

where if memory serves correctly @NickP chided him a little ;-)

I remember it was @Figureitout

Terence Tao

I listened to a couple of his lectures a while back to see how he thinks. I found him by chance when I was looking at math puzzles on YouTube, and his name was mentioned as the winner of one of those competitions. I remember the puzzle but forgot the name of the episode. I believe it was from 3Blue1Brown series, but I'm not sure now. Anyway, the kind of math he did wasn't interesting to me. Good channel to watch, btw.

Heh, the math there is more advanced (or weird) than anything I've learned

I learned that the hard way.

I vaguely recall learning to work withintegrals[…] I do rememberthis one girlin class one day asking the teacher,

Can't be that waitress in footnote [1] ;)

]]>It could be that 200 files were already disappeared. The file was disappeared, but not the webpage link.

https[:]//www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/d6dkoi/intel_removing_unknown_amount_of_drivers_and/

]]>"Intel recommends that users of BIOS Update [BLH6710H.86A] 0163 uninstall and/or discontinue use as soon as possible,"

Nice trick. As if it were possible.

https[:]//www.zdnet.com/article/intel-to-remove-old-drivers-and-bios-updates-from-its-site-by-the-end-of-the-week/

]]>