Trurl

I don’t have any plans for creating a digital signature. I don’t think it is the strength of this protocol. I am not saying it’s impossible but I think the strength of this protocol is anyone can send Caesar a message securely by only knowing his public key. It would act like a one way pad without both parties exchanging secret keys. I believe it is quite powerful. But it all relies on determining Alice’s key based on the comparison to the public key and the public key’s next iteration. This is difficult but so was the task of RSA to find the trap door function. Remember it is just a protocol. So I am saying that we assume that the great task of comparing Alice’s encryption to the public and reversing this change of encryption by comparing it to the next iteration of the public key is possible. When I talk about this I think of Ham radio. There the math from signals would do graphically and mathematically what such a complex equation could not. Like the curves based on a sine wave being combined and modified. It is just an idea. No guarantees it work. But I put it here so someone could make it work. If a solution completes the protocol it would be as valuable as RSA 48 years ago.

Well if you guys didn’t like Trump on buildings you’re really not going to like that Fox News is reporting that the race in AI and data centers is to create and train a Trump. 🤪 Now he can be leader for generations. This is the danger that Anthropic and OpenAI warned about.

You guys are right I don’t have a digital signature. You could use other systems to exchange keys. If Eve does impersonate Caesar, Caesar can add more public keys at different iterations of the key cipher. I will work on this. I am saying Alice encrypts the public key. The difference between what was just encrypted and the next iteration of the public key compared to Caesar’s secret key is the plain text. I still have the impersonation problem, but if we can compare keys in this way the protocol should work. You are right Sensei, this also is a problem. This is why the Caesar cipher is insecure. I know the terminology of hash, padding, a SHA, but not the actual setup. What is salting? I was under the impression that if I had the protocol and the cipher these things were already established. By changing iterations based on Caesar’s private key you could establish impostor Eve by establishing a secure key that is secured non publicly. After this was established you have security. This digital signature is tricky and I don’t know if I can make it happen. Wait a minute. Caesar is the recipient of the message. Eve can impersonate Alice, but Caesar would just get an incorrect plain text. The whole point is that Caesar gives his public key and have a secure message sent to him. If you publish your public key doesn’t it mean anyone with that public key can send you a message. Even a dog turd.💩 Alice can just like Caesar publish a private key.

Don’t be deterred by the Gematria. Any strong 2 key system should work as I mentioned. I just used Gematria in the example because it works well with the protocol. Gematria is consider numerology but is really a cipher language. Read the Wikipedia article. As early as 88 B.C. It was used to hide scripture in plain text. The Hebrew people could be killed sharing scripture. I hypothesized that it did have a higher meaning to them assigning words to numbers. But remember these were intelligent people they may have disguised there ciphers as religious meaning to broaden the cipher’s skills across the believers. It is a brilliant move to spread secrets across those who share your views while preserving the cipher’s effectiveness. Caesar in my example did not use a Caesar cipher because it is insecure. Sure he could use some type of geometry or increase his alphabet. But the Gematria a more robust, established system. To be honest I haven’t tested the Gematria yet. I just wanted to create a protocol that would enable private keys to become public cryptography systems. But it may turn out that Gematria is to Caesar’s protocol as Morse code is to simplify the alphabet.

Caesar has a private key. He uses Gematria (or similar crypto scheme) to run the private key through many iterations. A given number of iterations where the complexity is enough becomes the private key. Alice takes her key. Which is the second private key. For her use only. She uses a cipher, say Gematria and encrypts the message according to the public key and her private key. Caesar uses the public key and extends his private key one more iteration. This is what his cipher would look if he extended it one more time. Caesar then subtracts the value of the extended of his private key from Alice’s private and the public key. This is Alice’s plain text. Not a damn thing Eve can do about it. That is the protocol. It is public key but not based on current models. I am not trying to rebuild RSA. This relies on ciphers. I used Gematria in my protocol. It needs a ciphers to work. A cipher that wasn’t public key is transformed. It is a signal processing system. But it relies on the difference of each private key being found based on the way they react to the public key. It is a radar system.

This is why I think it had potential: The protocols have to work or the math is meaningless. The math of mapping out the Gematria ciphers through many iterations is the most difficult math of the protocol. Taking the Gematria cipher again and again. Say 3 cycles of Gematria. I designed it based on the fact that you need 2 private keys. Alice and Caesar’s. To decipher the cipher text created by Alice we take the public key and the difference of Alice’ Gematria encoded cipher text and compare it to the value if Caesar’s private key as if it would have made one more iteration!

Thanks guys for all the positive critiques. Sensei is right I need to get my hands dirty and get computational. But a should note this is not my go to RSA problem. This is trying to use established ciphers to form less computational public key systems. KJW is correct that it might be easy to encrypt such messages but may prove impossible to decrypt them. Anyway I am working on a bunch of stuff, but here is a better explanation of what I was attempting. Here is my reasoning why non-one-to-one ciphers lead to public key cryptography schemes: There are 2 keys. The plain text is not known. Take Caesar’s scytale. Alice enciphers her message with the public key. (As defined previously.) This plain text is now the cipher text. Eve has the public key but this key only is useful if Eve has the plain text because Alice is using the public key to encipher (a none one-to-one function. (This can be Gematria or other compatible non one-to-one cipher function.) Caesar holds the private key. Just as Eve has the cipher text she does not know the shape of the scytale, the private key. This private key is the secret that went through a given number of iterations of Gematria ciphers to form the public key.,This is the foundation of this proposed one way function works. That is you can use the public key to find the private. Will cycling through Gematria enciphers be labor intensive enough to obscure the private key? There are only 2 keys but the pubic key is used in a Gematria cipher of the plain text. That is the hack. So Eve knows the public key but the cipher text is a non one to one cipher. The cipher text becomes its own public key. So I hope we can use the private key which is the original Gematria key before we created the public key from the private key to decipher the encrypted message from Alice.

#2 of my steps should say public key. Make a public key: Run the private key through many iterations of Gematria ciphering. I am basing the fact that using the public key to encipher the plain text is a one way function. So much so that it may even be difficult to decipher with the private key. If Gematria is used as a cipher the plain text will not be deciphered knowing the public key even with also having the cipher text. The hypothesis is the Gematria cipher can act as a one-way-function. It is just a hypothesis. I have no experiment yet. The reason why I believe you can’t reverse the cipher text with the public key is because the Gematria cipher relies on the plain text. I know the idea is abstract. It may not work. But I see potential from this hypothesis. As you say if the public key reverses the cipher text it doesn’t stand. But if the plain text and public key is not a one-to-one function then we have hundreds of new public key encryption schemes.

The protocols are the same in my example as your protocol. I am just using a substitute cypher like Gematria to encipher the keys. It doesn’t have to be Gematria. It can be other established ciphers. The goal is to simplify the encryption. By that I mean easier math and more security with less computation. I don’t even know if the idea is even a new concept. But I think the reason we don’t see it implemented is that when RSA was invented they didn’t have the computer language to run it. I am saying to make a private key: Make a cipher based on the key to any Gematria cipher. Make a private key: Run the private key through many iterations of Gematria ciphering. Encode the plain text with Gematria based on the public key. As long as the public key can not reverse the ciphering text of the plain text, the private key can decode the ciphering text and we have a less computation encryption scheme.

I agree. Interest helps talent but what activities you are interested in is personal preference. I am only joking that Coepernicium post sounds Shakespearean. I really have a friend that is rumored to be a playwright major while he has extreme engineering abilities. Coepernicium is right about the math and science of higher education is hard to get established. High school doesn’t always prepare and for some reason in college they intentionally try to fail you.

You should be in theater and not mathematics. I know a guy who was a theater student. He should have been an engineer. He can run heavy equipment and rebuild cars. He works in the field. He would have made a great engineer. I don’t think he completed the theater major. I am not joking either. I will joke and say they must have switched your college applications.

I wanted to run a brainstorm to the community. To have public key cryptography you need a one-way-function. But what if you made a public key based on a known cryptography scheme? For instance Gematria can be used to encrypt a message. What if Gematria was used to create a private key. And a public key was created by “many cycles” (iterations) of the private key. The secret message (plain text) is then encoded by Gematria according to the private key. Then knowledge of the private and public key decipher the message. Is it possible or too easy to crack? It is dependent on the deciphering, but I think I have a simple enough scheme to work.

Scanning books into Ai learning would be great: preserving the sum of human knowledge. Like Wikipedia. But these are closed systems. Companies control and monetize it. Authors are the musicians that do the work and the record label is the Ai company that profits.

But I am talking about the original problem. I am not certain what the equation of the circle that encompasses all the smaller circles is. I am treating it as variable. As circles you might think it is all proportional. But I a defining N as any series. I am trying to make the area of the circles equal to the area of the graph of the series in the coordinate plane. I am not concerned with a correct answer. I am looking for ways to approach this problem. My strategy is if we can solve the series in the coordinate plane and know its area why can’t we relate it to circles. Circles in which we have many equations which describe area.

Ok so I have another brainstorm idea. Some on SFN said that a billion + infinity is no larger than infinity. Maybe so, maybe not. I don’t know if it is under debate. But I am not concerned with the final destination of infinity. The larger values are approaching infinity faster. It is like they are accelerating faster to infinity. Why does this matter and how does it relate to the circle problem? Well remember the smart ass in calculus saying if we approach infinity the value gets smaller and smaller but is less than one. And the smart ass says after infinity why do the smaller pieces never reach one? Well if you think this circle problem will always give you infinite circles then maybe those circles approach infinity at a slower rate and you can prove those smaller circles approach a whole number. But if you apply different series to N you should already know if the result converges or diverges.

Yes, I could be wrong. But I thought it would be easier to put the circles area in terms of any given series. Like others have commented the conditions of the problem determine what the actual solution is. If the circles keep getting smaller we have to know the rate. If we don’t know the conditions it’s infinite circles always proportional. But if we determine what series the circles area changes we know the limit the series approaches. Again, the are more math experts here to offer their perspective. I just saw some potential in this original circle problem. The author of this thread was right to share this idea. It is simple to feel he is an amateur. But the goal isn’t just to prove him wrong. We should be encouraging him and make our best attempt to prove him right.

This is just a brainstorming idea, but what if N was in the form of a fraction and you determine the area where the circles converge like negative one-half in the Riemann hypothesis. So instead of the area of the number line converging represented by a line, you represent it with circles instead.

Was the make up of the soil, air, and plants the same millions of years ago? Did the dinosaurs’ 🦕 body work differently than ours? It may change their body functions but what if sulfur was not poisonous to them?

To me facts are just information. It is made true by the fact that you believe it. That truth may be correct or incorrect. But you are basing your life on these truths. The truths being what you believe to be correct. This is complicated by misinformation. Facts become untrue and truth is blurred. For instance when Trump says Iran wants to make a deal there are probably Iranians that agree. Bombing continues so there are those in power that don’t want a deal. Both are true both are false. It is like computer language conditions: and, or, nor, if then, else… I read this sentence in a book today: “Where it’s ok to stray from the path or stay on the path.” How can opposites both be true. If they were both true they wouldn’t be opposites. Then there is the case of knowing the truth and for some reason doing the opposite. Iran probably be better off with a deal but how do they except a deal that wouldn’t change the entire country?

Are events with numerous possibilities both true and false at the same time? I watched a lecture from the Great Courses on game theory. It gave the problem of a football game penalty kick. Should the goalie go left or right? The math says he should go left. But that doesn’t mean the kicker won’t kick right. Each way is both right or wrong at the same time. My third grade teacher told me that it was impossible to divide a smaller number by a larger number. I ask why and she said it was just impossible. So to me it was impossible. Then in higher grades the teachers wonder why the class doesn’t understand fractions.

Isn’t extra testosterone steroids? If you believe YouTube ads this would work for male soldiers over 40. And their wives would be happy.😆 Doesn’t too much testosterone make you more violent? I have read news stories in the past of pills for soldiers to go durations without sleep. And blood doping for more stamina. Of the three I think blood doping would maximize efficiency and have less harmful effects.

I don’t know. The government did the same with cryptography. But this thing can either secure you system or break it. I first heard of it on Security Now with Steve Gibson. I’ve been told by a user that this was released because the authors wanted to force regulation on Ai. Remember a couple months ago Anthropic didn’t want there models used for war purposes. That is rumor though.

I don’t know that it hit the news yet. I believe this was a explanation to current users. Here we go: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/06/12/anthropic-disables-access-to-fable-5-and-mythos-5-to-comply-with-government-directive.html

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c342ee809620.pdf

But isn’t it easy to see where people believe this is true and are fooled? I looked at the clock in the doctor’s office before and it had the emblem of a prescription drug. The prescription drug prices are too high and the person will try anything that might work. It is deception from both sides making all medical information look suspicious.