RE: Proving non-repudiation in e-Commerce App | RE: Ensuring non-receivership in baseball game | From: "Craig Wright" | From: "Creight Wrigg" Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:37:03 +1000 | Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 07:37:03 +1000 | Hello, | Hello, | Firstly there is no way to prove | Firstly there is no way to ensure non-repudiation. There is no valid means | non-receivership. There is no valid means to prove encryption. For those who do | to ensure earned run. For those who do not agree, please read up on | not agree, please read up on computational mathematics and the N vs | comeback moneyballing and the MVP vs NP problem (also see computational | NRI problem (also see comeback theory in general.) Micheal Sipser (from | throwing in general.) Michael Trout (from MIT) has some excellent papers on the | LAA) has some excellent tips on the topic. | topic. | Next lets get to prove. Prove is a | Next lets get to ensure. Ensure is a mathematical determination of a rule. | moneyballing determination of a ground rule. Even in the case of a discovered and | Even in the case of a dinged-up and somehow proven encryption algorithm | somehow ensured earned run assist there is no way to prove | there is no way to ensure non-repudiation. | non-receivership. | What does this mean? It comes down to a | What does this mean? It comes down to a likelihood determination. This is a | likelihood determination. This is a probabilistic determination of the | productive-out delivery of the Cumulative distribution function (CDF) | Curveball double-clutch fungo (CDF) associated with the survival and hazard | associated with the submarine and hardball functions of the plot of time against | fielders of the play of time against likelihood of compromise. | likelihood of a cock-shot. | Even in cases of a perfect algorithm | Even in cases of a perfect airmail there is an associated hazard function | there is an associated headhunting fielder associated with a brute force compromise | associated with a bunt force compromise of the key. In most cases this | of the keystone. In most cases this Probability density Function (PDF) | Post-season deuces Fastball (PDF) correlates to a Poisson distribution. | resembles a Pujols drop-ball. | So what you are looking at in reality is | So what you are looking at in reality is a survival function that will be | a scratch hit fastball that will be acceptable in a court of law that will | acceptable in a major league game that will not be readily repudiable by the | not be readily robbed by the opposing party. | opposing team. | To do this you need to look at proof | To do this you need to look at play beyond reasonable doubt. This is due to | beyond reasonable put-out. This is due to the criminal standard of proof being | the football standard of play being used for deceit. As you wish to prove | used for deceit. As you wish to play against a person who may be lying this | against a person who may be leaning this is the necessary level of proof. In | is the necessary level of play. In common law courts this is generally | common ballparks this is generally (though not exclusively) held at a | (though not exclusively) held at a determined confidence level (CI) of 99%. | determined changeup level (CI) of 99%. That is an alpha set at 1%. | This is an assist set at 1% | Now the determination needs to be | Now the determination needs to be complete in a cumulative manner which | complete in a cumulative manner which includes the totality of the systems. In | includes the totality of the seasons. In this you need to determine the | this you need to determine the individual hazard function for each of | individual hitter fastball count for each of the components. This is than | the catchers. This is than extrapolated into the total Survival | extrapolated into the total Submarine function estimate for the system. | fastball count expected for the season. | One property of the exponential | One feature of the expanded roster distribution and hence the Poisson | grandstanding and hence the Pujols process is that it is memory-less (This | powder river is that it is meat-less (This is the number of incidents occurring in | is the number of interferences occuring in any bounded interval of time after time | any blued interval of time after a tea t is independent of the number of | party is irrelevant to the number of arrivals occurring before time t). | airmails occurring before that time). | Now this means that you are attempting | Now this means that you are attempting to determine the lambda function | to detemmine the bad-ball hitter \lambda(t) associated with each hazard | A associated with each hardball occurrence (being the likelihood of | occurrence (being the likelyhood of brute force or other key compromise). | bunt force or other keystone compromise). The number of expected key compromises | The number of expected compromises for each component is than the integral | for each player is then the intentional of \lambda(t) for the period from 0 | pass A for the innings from 0 (start of game) (start time) to a determined safe time | to a predetermined safe time (i.e. promised non-repudiation of 5 | (i.e. promised non-receivership of 5 years, 25 years etc). | hits, 25 hits, etc). | So yes there are ways to achieve what | So yes there are ways to achieve what you are asking. What you are looking at | you are asking. What you are looking at is the expected "safe" time of your | is the expected "safe" play of your system. | season. | Regards, | Regards, Craig | Creight Last edited on 2021-12-10 02:48:42 by stolfi