Trurl

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.

It does have many similarities. There are sieves and complex algorithms to numerology. There are sophisticated algorithms in numerology. As MigL said science is based on measurable and observable math. Sometimes there is a fuzzy area where we don’t know where or how the math is represented. Lots of things in crypto are intangible. All I am saying is maybe we could use numerology techniques to find patterns in ciphers or public keys. But I don’t think this is an original idea of mine because I think others have already put it into practice. I will give you one of my ideas which I don’t know if anyone has put into practice. What if we were to take statistics and combine them with numerology equations? Not to predict games but to play them. You could add randomness to D&D and eliminate the need for dice. The attack points and save rolls could randomly be defined based on numerological aspects of the players character. Take a fighting game like SF2. What if we designed a realistic fighting game? The player throws a round house kick and the opponent blocks. Given the position and timing the chance of blocking is a statistic. What would be the effect of using numerology to enhance the stats? I am saying combined with real world stats that though logical could never be truly random. If you don’t believe in numerology, you believe the answers don’t have a pattern anyway thus random. Again I don’t know how I feel about numerology. It is ancient. But finding patterns is fine. But at the same time you have to be cautious of spiritual things.

I agree. But if you don’t believe in spiritual aspects of numerology the pattern seems like it is based on the imaginary. But even if numerology is not believed in the is still a mathematical relationship. Didn’t it take awhile for imaginary numbers to be accepted? Or drawing in many dimensions? There are hundreds of algorithms for numerology. Could these algorithms relate to cryptography? Could you decode with an algorithm that knows no limits of missing information? I say to break a trap door function you have to apply a known pattern to it. A one way function that appears to be irreversible may give clues when you augment it with a known series. I don’t know numerology all that well but I bet if you used the tools it has cryptographic uses. Like how in basic ciphers letter frequency is used. The plain text has already been encoded with it symbolic equivalent. I got you. We are now on the same page. When you said WAGs I thought WAGs were some undefined category. There is an over abundance of wags. All the more reason to apply numerology techniques. Would you agree with the statement: solving public key cryptography is numerology I the sense by reading the message is like working numerology in the sense that there is no logic to it. Ignoring the fact we have a public key. Three times in the past I have tried to solve problems with 2 or more unknowns. That is what trap door functions are: a public key with 2 unknowns to get the private key. This is not numerology, but it is pushing boundaries. What if I took a graph of the public key function and took a pattern I modified from numerology? And graphed f at numerology over the graph of public key? We look at the resulting graph and look for patterns that are known in numerology. So now for 2 unknowns we have an algorithm. Of course you could use a more accepted pattern. We are just using numerology for fun and it has a bunch of tools to analyze the graph. I know you will be skeptical of this method. The plotting idea is mine. The use of numerology isn’t. Someone once emailed me numerology applied to my work. I thought to myself there is no correlation. I’m not so sure.

Apotheosis? Really? The wipedia example is an idiom. A formation in rock why wouldn’t it be a pattern. It may not be alien life but it stands out to have a regular, Demetria shape instead of a plane irregular shape. It is not my invention that patterns and computation is everywhere. That is computational mathematics. I am not trying to make you believe in numerology. I am only to see if it can be applied to traditional science, particularly cryptography. There are patterns in numerology. You guys as a traditional mat guys just don’t subscribe to the result. And truthfully I am not sold on numerology. It can be misused. I relate Ai and computational algorithms to numerology because we are plugging in stuff and we don’t fully understand how it works. What is the difference of deriving meaning from a position of a star or asking Ai to design your battle plan?

Well from what you guys are telling me I don’t think the pattern part of numerology is not what you disagree with. It is the application of the pattern. The pattern is being contrasted with nonsense. This is the dangerous part of numerology. Question: What if we had a time traveler who went in the past knowing all future events. And numerology was like baseball stats where you use numerology to see how badly changing events would change the future. If such time travel was possible we could prove if numerology worked. I’m not saying that this is possible, but it reflects why people want to know the future or want to change past events. (They are missing chances for present events.) I believe events have meaning but the meaning is tangible not a number (usually). But I also believe unconventional patterns do exist in creative works. Like a renaissance painting. If someone invents a cipher it works like numerology. Like hackers exploiting bugs in software. It wasn’t supposed to work that way. It isn’t just science it is an art form. I don’t think science can explain the World itself. We need people who do numerology. Even if it is just to laugh at them😉 But to me ciphers are a form of numerology. Again ciphers are assigning values and again a man made creative work. And ciphers are scientific. But maybe numerology can help. The are algorithms in numerology that cycle through the numbers with a sieve. These systems are so vast that we will never completely understand them. That makes them fun. But I think this understanding contrasts with numerology. We are trying to figure these things out but we a limited. Our understanding contrasts to the numerologist trying to predict the future so he can ignore the present.

I wrote a conclusion to my thread before I read the most correct replies. I will try to respond to them in the next couple of days but until then I will explain why I started the thread. So I’ve presented a challenge to all you science types about numerology. Myself I don’t practice numerology. But that doesn’t mean patterns in all things don’t exist. I mean I can see where giving a name to a baby would influence their future. There was a case were a father named his son Sue so he would grow up to be tough because his father wouldn’t be there to look after him. Seriously though, I don’t think we can see all patterns. But why does this matter? I think if you have one pattern you can apply it to a place where we can’t see a pattern. In a previous thread I mentioned Sesquation could be used to solve for x in polynomials. In this case of polynomials I hypothesized that if you had test values of the graph the pattern that is known (Sesquation) would reveal a pattern. I don’t have all the details but I think there is something there. Cryptography has roots in numerology. Simple cyphers have letter frequencies. But I don’t try to predict the future with numerology. I am only concerned with the processing of the pattern. I wish I could share the numerology work an unknown reader sent me. It wasn’t to predict the future but related numbers of patterns found by a sieving algorithm. It looked sophisticated and I didn’t have anyway to debunk it. But also true numerology is dangerous. That is the misuse of. But I don’t completely rule out significant patterns. Take paintings for example. Heads are drawn in a triangle representing the trinity. So any designed creative work could possibly be explained by similar methods as numerology. I have exhausted this thread but a hope it give a thought provoking take on patterns. Because in public key cryptography you don’t have to find the pattern of the trap door function, you just have to find 2 or more unknowns based on a makeshift pattern you augmented the graph with. But that is speculation. But you have to start with speculation to start new investigations.