Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad

Huh???? So, now you *agree* that the probabilities of M=0 and M=1 are
unaffected by observing C=0? Then you should have no difficulty in
also agreeing that these probabilites are unaffected by observing
C=1,
and, therefore, that they are unaffected by observing C, whatever
value we may find that C takes. So, intercepting the message gives us
no additional information about M. What's the problem?
-----------you mistake lies in not obeying perfect secrecy. The
probability changed in the whole process. I point out OPt has good
attributes.

I get the impression that you are inventing complexities where none
exist. EITHER C is unknown and random (and M has its prior, or
initial, distribution), OR C is known and fixed (and M has its
conditional distribution). In the scenario we are discussing, the
conditional distribution of M (after C is observed) is exactly the
same as the prior distribution of M (before C is observed), whatever
value of C actually is observed. And that's all there is to it.



-------------your prior is not EITHER C is unknown and random (and M
has its prior)

but shannon's is. you do not see this paper clearly.you perpetrate a
fraud by substitute.
we discuss perfect secrecy.

.