[2439] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Holocomm (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ed Gerck)
Wed Apr 1 11:17:02 1998
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 20:42:04 -0300 (EST)
From: Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>
Reply-To: Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>
To: Mike Rosing <cryptech@Mcs.Net>
cc: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980331153323.23615G-100000@Jupiter.Mcs.Net>
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Mike Rosing wrote:
>
>The base company (novaware?) does have something to do with lasers. So
>he's got the math background to create something like "holocomm". It
>can't me much more than a simple transform or else it's computationally
>too complex and time consuming. I certainly wouldn't throw money at it
>yet, that's for sure!
>
Perhaps, that's a good place to start: what Holocomm is NOT.
Let me suppose the following Lemma:
Lemma: it is NOT a Fourier transform.
To prove the Lemma, suppose the opposite. It is a Fourier transform.
However, a Fourier transform pair (ie, direct and inverse) is always
lossy when it must map between a random finite plain text message,
its finite image message and back. Thus, a Fourier transform of a
message cannot be inverted in the general case of a random finite
message that is encoded into a finite sequence. Hence, if Holocomm is
a Fourier transform it cannot be decoded without losses for a general
message, which would not allow it to transport signatures or
encrypted data by algorithms that require exact data such as RSA,
DES, RC4, etc, as announced. Then Holocomm cannot be a Fourier
transform and the supposition is absurd.
Which proves the Lemma. Holocomm is NOT a Fourier transform.
Now, before we go on and prove that it is NOT a Hankel transform, NOT
a Laplace transform and so on, perhaps we can reread what was
*declared* that Holocomm is:
The Holocomm system is derived as a combination of free-standing
and/or bound-state wave packets in a large quantum mechanical system
that works as a thermal bath, which provides for the necessary state
mixing and strongly penalizes parameter-space search.
Then, as I read above from your message, your only ground to suppose
that it was a transform was that otherwise it seemed to you that the
above dscription would imply a very complex system. And then you
inferred that such very complex system would be time consuming to
evaluate. However, that is not axiomatic -- of course.
Ok, now that we saw that Holocomm is not a transform, what other
options are left?
Cheers,
Ed
PS: I enjoyed your question and the reason why I present Holocomm to
be evaluated before anyone "throws their money at it" is both
professional and selfish ;-)
______________________________________________________________________
Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br
http://novaware.cps.softex.br
--- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---
