[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Provably "Secure" Crypto (was: IPG Algorithm Broken!)
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Provably "Secure" Crypto (was: IPG Algorithm Broken!)
- From: [email protected] (John Anonymous MacDonald)
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:28:25 -0800
- Comments: There is no way to determine the originator of this message.If you wish to be blocked from receiving all anonymous mail, sendyour request to the <[email protected]> mailing list.The operator of this particular remailer can be reached at<[email protected]>.
- Sender: [email protected]
At 7:39 PM 11/25/1996, The Deviant wrote:
>> Rigorous proofs of the non-existence of an algorithm are not new.
>> Neither are rigorous proofs that any algorithm which can solve a given
>> problem requires a minimal running time. Or, in an even stronger sense,
>Hrmmm... I seem to see a problem (namely Moore's first law) in assigning
>anything a "minimal running time". Perhaps "minimal instruction count"
>would be more suited to your example. Because if you're talking about
>time, it essentially boils down to "the longer something takes the less
>time it takes".
"Introduction to Algorithms" by Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest is a
good introduction to Big O notation. The problem you raise is the
motivation behind this notation.
diGriz