Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: wangyong <hellowy@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:02:08 -0700
Fair enough, I admit that I have not read all your posts and papers.
However, this particularly simple example seems like an excellent way
for a lazy person to get to the bottom of what you are talking about.
So, if you feel like explaining here in brief and simple terms what
you think is wrong with my calculation, or how the scenario that you
are envisaging differs from the one I described, then it might lead
more quickly to some better understanding. If not then no worries...
----i have given the link. what I want to say is you are lazy.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: matt271829-news
- Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- References:
- Confirmation of Shannon’s Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: wangyong
- Re: Confirmation of Shannon’s Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: matt271829-news
- Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: wangyong
- Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: matt271829-news
- Confirmation of Shannon’s Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- Prev by Date: Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- Next by Date: Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- Previous by thread: Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- Next by thread: Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|