Re: Confirmation of Shannon's Mistake about Perfect Secrecy of One-time-pad
- From: William Hughes <wpihughes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 05:56:00 -0800
On Nov 6, 8:38 am, wangyong <hell...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
=============your proof is just I gave.
The probability is under the case c is not fixed,
I *start* with the unconditional probabilities
as when c fixed, the probability distribution changed,
Of course. And I computed those changes.
you admit that probability of K is changged,
how can you insure other
probability is not changged,
A probability may or may not change.
To find out which I computed the
conditional probabilities using
the definition of conditional probability
When I computed the conditional probabilites
I found that the probability distribution
of K changed but the probability distribution
of M did not.
how can you use the condition c is not
fixed, K and M is independant , to compute the probability when c is
fixed, that case k and m are dependant.
It is easy to see from the
definition of a conditional probability distribution
that if you have the full unconditional probability distribution
you can determine the conditional probability distribution.
I first used the condition c is not fixed, K and M
are independent to compute the unconditional probability distribution,
then used the definition of a conditional probability distribution
to get the probabilities when c is fixed.
- William Hughes
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- 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: William Hughes
- 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: William Hughes
- 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: William Hughes
- 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: William Hughes
- 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: William Hughes
- 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: William Hughes
- 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: William Hughes
- 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
- Prev by Date: Re: Dutch title translation requested
- Next by Date: Re: Can we have a group that is closed on some operator but all elements do not have an inverse?
- 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
|