Re: Q.E.D.

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, IPG Sales wrote:

> 
>          Some of you have sardonically written to say "Nihil Est
>          Demonstrandum," N.E.D. because an OTP must be derived from a
>          hardware source, that is, it must be a pure random sequence
>          of limitless entropy. Accordingly, they unbashfully assert
>          that an OTP generated by a computer program is not possible.
> 
>          How do they know that? Does the Bible tell them so, or the
>          Koran, or do they get it from the Torah? Why not cite the
>          source of their certainty instead of advancing an unsupported
>          proposition.  I do not mean to be rude, but excuse me, what
>          scientific proof can they offer for that immovable avowal?

Show me the scientific proof that a monkey cannot write a bestselling
novel in 100 minutes.  Of course you can't.  This is called "proving a
negative."

The fact that this little nuance has escaped you does not bode well for
your software generated OTP scheme or, indeed, your general intelligence.

>          There is no scientific proof whatsoever, none at all, except
>          for the words and their steadfast, and maybe self serving,
>          postulate.  Accordingly, obviously it is they, not us, who are
>          the ones that have "Nihil Est Demonstrandum," in this matter.
>          There is not one scintilla of sustainable evidence to support
>          such a doctrine.

Ok, what scientific proof exists that a truely random number generator can
be software based?  There is not one scintilla of sustainable evidence to
support this concept either.

>          While the vast majority of people knowledgeable about
>          cryptography have not heretofore believed that it is possible
>          for software to produce an OTP, that does not make it a
>          scientific fact, but merely means it is the consensus of
>          scientific opinion that it is not possible. With all due
>          respect to Bruce, and his exceptional work, Paul, Roy and many 
>          others who obviously know the subject matter of which we speak, I
>          offer that  history is replete with scientists supplying proof of
>          the seemingly impossible.

Ok, here comes the part where you tell us that you are the Einstein of
cryptography and will prove all the experts wrong?  "They laughed at me at
the institute, but I will show them!"  (In this case they laughed at you
because you are an idiot, not because they were shallow minded.

>          In support of their position, some have pointed out that John
>          von Neumann, to paraphrase, stated that ARITHMETIC cannot
>          produce random numbers, a thesis which I agree with; but
>          where is that, in any way inconsistent with IPG's position on
>          EUREKA?  IPG has produced a system to generate software OTPs,
>          albeit it within limited but but more than ample entropy, not
>          software random numbers.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.  Does your software not use arithmetic?

>          We stipulate the obvious fact that the encryptor stream
>          generated by EUREKA is a PRNG stream, though we do consider
>          it gross denigration to castigate it as ONLY a PRNG stream.
>          It is a PRNG issue that also happens to be an extremely well
>          behaved OTP sequence, with limited but ample entropy, as well.
>          It meets each and every criteria rationally established for an
>          OTP in all reasonable aspects. Subjected to any and all
>          statistical analyses, the EUREKA PRNG stream manifests itself as
>          being random, though we know, as a scientific fact, that it is
>          not.

All of the above is substanceless hype.  Why, exactly, are you telling us?
Clearly none of us are going to buy your product.  I suggest trying to get
the FTC procurments section to purchase EUREKA in bulk for their own use.

>          To substantiate that posit, and unlike the consensus of
>          scientific opinion, obviously N.E.D., that believes that
>          software cannot produce an OTP, IPG offers "Quod Erat
>          Demonstrandum," Q.E.D. scientific proof that we can produce
>          a humungous number of software OTPs sufficient to meet any and
>          all current or future requirements.

"Captain, the phase dampener has overrided the antimatter flux capicator.
I think I can pin it down with a phased neutreno pulse if I isolate the
presence of diocrastic radiation."

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li