Nahaj

Cryptography

Hi! (Crypto Project)

Hello! I was intrigued by your comment about your SHA implementation... Are you sure it's the only validated SHA implementation, esp. regarding NIST test? OpenSSL appears here indeed... I know it does not matter, but I'm just curious :-) -- ClementSeveillac 18:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It is the only NIST validated OPEN SOURCE implementation. (You can check the list yourself... last I looked I was the only one.) If I have somewhere ommitted the "open source" part of that statement, please point me at it and I'll fix it. Nahaj

OK, I was wrong. I missed OpenSSL getting validated about two months ago. So, after five years I'm one of two. (And still the first.) Nahaj 21:10:49, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

I did not look when OpenSSL got its validation, but indeed, you will still be the first in 2042 ;) (that's what's fun with certifications: sometimes, a widely used program is only validated, or, say, legalized, years after it's been used by thousands of users, like GnuPG which was illegal in France until its registration about 3 or 4 years ago :-D ) -- ClementSeveillac 18:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and it will still have been the third to pass the full bit string tests, instead of just the byte tests. :) What's the significance of 2042? Nahaj 02:33:58, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

---

---

Logic

Modal Logic, et al. [Archived]

This is the continuation of the thread on the Provability Logic talk page.

Archived to User_talk:Nahaj/Modal_logic_et_al.

K4 systems (Resolution) [Archived]

This is the continuation of the "Modal Logic, et al." thread.

Archived to User_talk:Nahaj/K4 systems (Resolution)

System H

[Context: In some discussion (probably one of the archived ones, I forget) I asked for a reference for the use of the name "H" for intuitionist logic. EJ, below, provided that reference.]

Ad intuitionistic logic = H: I don't know what would you consider a good reference, the name is consistently used by a large number of logicians (particularly, Russian). From top of my head, it is used for instance in this monograph: Vladimir V. Rybakov, Admissibility of Logical Inference Rules, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 136, Elsevier, 1997. (BTW, the letter "H" stands for "Heyting's calculus".) -- EJ 17:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What I would generally consider a good reference is a specific (accessible on line preferably) paper, or a specific book (expected to be in a University library or availiable through inter-library load) and page number, as I have generally given you. It looks like what you have given matches that, and I'll have to go borrow a copy. Nahaj 19:59:50, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

H is problematic... there is a (non-intuitionist) system named H in the literature predating Heyting's publication (The reason that some list Heyting's system as HIC.) So I've added it to my list of systems that have overlapping names that I need to finish disentangling and put on the site. [[Users:Nahaj]|Nahaj]

H (for Henken) is also used ["The logic of provability", G. Boolos, p149] for the a non-intuitionist system between K4 and GL. Nahaj 12:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This is hardly surprising, short names tend to be overloaded. Another H in use is in the name of K4H=K4+$p\to \Box (\Diamond p\to p)$ (I got this from Chagrov & Zakharyaschev). Or consider "M", which is on one hand used as a name for McKinsey's axiom, on another hand as a synonym for T. As for Boolos' H = Henkin, I am not convinced that it was really intended as a permanent name for the logic. The logic is only interesting as a counterexample (namely, the simplest known Kripke incomplete normal modal logic), it seems to me that Boolos just needed to have a label for it for the few pages of his book which deal with the logic. This is however a matter of opinion. (BTW, the logic is not between K4 and GL: it does not contain K4, and in fact, adding K4 to it yields GL.) -- EJ 16:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the Chagrov & Zakharyaschev, I'll add it to my need to read list. M is used for many others also, Megill and Bunder's M shows up in discussions of D-completeness in logics. I'll go back and check Boolos' for the location of H (it wouldn't surprise me if I were wrong.) Nahaj 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Went back and looked. I was wrong, my original line should read "...between K and GL..." instead of "...between K4 and GL..." to be correct. Nahaj 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've found many early authors calling it "Heyting Propositional Calculus H" (I assume to distinguish it from other uses of "H"). Under that name it allowed me to finally track down some results I'd been looking for, specificly the original papers that produced mappings of Heyting's H into S4 and S3. Thank you. Nahaj 13:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to EJ on Ken Pledger's numbering

[Context: On the Provability page E.J. said

Just to make things clear: what I wrote was not intended as a personal attack on Pledger (I didn't realize the wording is ambiguous, I of course didn't mean "crazy Pledger", but "crazy naming convention", which it is: inventing yet another naming from scratch is a not a good way to resolve the chaotic situation on naming of modal logics) or on you (the comments were meant to be helpful). I'll continue the discussion on your talk page. -- EJ 16:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

]

This section was just trying to correct the apparent misconception that Pledgers numbering was intended to resolve any issues of the current modal logic naming mess. Nahaj 17:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

EJ; I think you missunderstand what Ken Pledgers numbering is about. He was investgating all systems derived from S3 by identifying nested modalities. Most of these systems were (and still are) otherwise unnamed. As his paper points out, the family as a whole has a very nice clean natural structural numbering. Since most were unnamed, it made sense to apply that numbering. (And for the few systems that did have names, he noted [As my pages do] the natural structural numbering, and the traditional name.) Nahaj 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

List of rules of inference

I noticed your interest in completely rewriting List of rules of inference. I started to make one or two little corrections to that page. Once I got started, I kinda sorta couldn't stop. The fixes I made, while extensive, are still of the quick and dirty variety. I hope I haven't stepped on any plans of yours to rewrite the page—I have no objection to your doing so. I'm curious as to what your ideas for the page were. --JMRyan 11:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently swamped... If I'm doing nothing I can hardly feel that you are stepping on anything. I do, in fact, like what you have done. Whatever else can be said it is now the case that the rules are rules instead of substitution of equivalences gone wild. Thank you. Nahaj 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 03:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll check it out. Nahaj 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the project's own link to the participants roster is bad. The page says it is eligible for quick deleation because it moved, but there does not seem to be a clue as to where it moved to. Nahaj 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"Condensed Detachment" formal section

You left a comment on my talk page referring to an article that, I'm assuming, I made an edit on. Which article are you talking about? Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the article was "Condensed Detachment". (Hence the reason I titled the section "Condensed Detachment citation".)

I used the footnotes that were at the bottom of the "old section" to reference the parts that were applicable. I realize that you want to give credit to Larry Wos for sending you that information through an email, however I have the following concerns:

As I put on the page, and you removed, it was a letter FROM Dolph Ulrich TO Larry Wos. It was not email authored by Larry Wos. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And No, you didn't put it where applicible... Before your first edits of the page the text you put under the D rule section was attributed to Dr. Ulrich. At the time you made the statement above it was not so credited. And in fact your D rule section NEVER had any author attribution at any time from the time you created it until the time I removed it. Nahaj 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Who is Larry Wos? What credibility does he have that could be easily identified and respected by the general public. The link to the website you provide for him does very little to explain who he is.

He is one of the most famous [founding] researchers in the field of automated theorem proving with several books to his credit. (And Dolph Ulrich is a current well known researcher in the field with many very nice published papers.) And why SHOULD it matter who they are? that is a good formal description, which the article needed desparately. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC) And, of course, they could just look at the bottom of the page, and notice that he is co-author of one of the two papers referenced. :) Nahaj 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quoting an email from him implies, at least to me, that this is original research conducted by this Larry Wos; and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research. While this may not be the case, it does, to a certain degree imply that. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

I can't see how anybody familiar with the topic could think that was original research... I fear you are really reaching on that one. It is obviously an extended formal description of a common term, not some research project. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• A notation in the title heading does not fall in line with Wikipedia's manual of style . On a side note, there is no template in Wikipedia to cite emails.

It was in the body of the section, not the title (as anyone can check on the history). But you are probably right, it should have been a footnote, . But you didn't move it to a footnote or reference, you REMOVED it on the grounds it didn't have a citation. So, since I thought what I had was a reasonable citation, and you think it was not, WHAT are you saying should have been there that wasn't? Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lastly, I don't know much on the subject. But I would keep in mind, that citations are needed (according to Wikipedia) when using "direct quotes and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." It is also used to avoid plagiarism issues.

This is NOT plagirism, it was a direct quote used with permission of the author. I have no problem with putting in the citation you say it needs if you will just tell me what a citation needs that the one your removed did not already have. Nahaj 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more concerns I have. If you believe that this information "needs" to be credited to this person, the more likely that this piece of information needs to be removed. Again, falling under the no original research theme. However, if this is common knowledge in this subject area, then we're OK. Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 15:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have permission from him to use it uncredited, then it doesn't need to be credited to him. The permission I got said I'd give proper credit. The article would be rather useless without the formal section, but I can't stop you from removing it. But maybe you should let someone who is familiar with the topic make that decision? In the mean time I've put back on the author information in a footnote (and a statment it is by the author's permission). If you will tell me what that is missing as a citation, I'll gladly fix that. Nahaj 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I loathe having discussions through talk pages, so instead of responding to your counter points (which never really addressed my concerns) I have moved the citation to the end of the section since it doesn't belong in the title heading, and provided links to the two individuals mentioned in the citation to give the citation credibility. The reason the citation was removed previously is because an email between two people is a weak citation and can't be proven to the general public of Wikipedia. There is no verification that this email actually took place because it is not a published work. Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I had something that made it clear that the whole section was a quote used by permission. You replaced it by something that made it look like only the last sentence was. That is defininately not giving the author proper credit. Since I'm not always around, and can't keep putting the author's credit for the whole section back on, it appears that there is no way this text can be on Wikipedia without violating the author's rights. So I've removed the section, as you requested above. (And I resent the fact you started this with a comment about the email of "If this is true", and you've ended it with it "can't be proven"... I think this shows bad faith.) I think the article is now much poorer for your efforts. Nahaj 14:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're over reacting to this. Sheesh. First, my comment about "if this is true" was made back in May before our recent dialog, since then we have cleared some things up and that comment is no longer relevant. You added the section on "Formal description" so if you want to remove it that is your right. Back in May I only remove the citation part, and cleaned up the text. I only discussed removing the section if it was based on original research; which you say it is not. I'm sorry if you don't like having the citation at the end of the section, but you don't put it in the heading. By just having that citation show up in the article you avoid any plagiarism issues and the author of the content is given credit. Feel free to put it somewhere else in the body of the text that you feel more appropriate. I'll leave it to you if you want to restore the "Formal description" section. Barkeep ^{Chat | $} 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Feel free to put it somewhere else in the body of the text that you feel more appropriate." Get real... it is a matter of record that I DID, and you removed it in May. It was at the start of the section IN THE BODY (and not in the title as you falsely imply above in your third bullet.)... anybody can check the history to see this is fact. Nahaj 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Back in May I only remove the citation part..." Actually, back in May you removed the author credit because you said there was no citation. Nahaj 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"By just having that citation show up in the article you avoid any plagiarism issues..." The article had credit to the author and no plagarism issues until you removed the author attribution. If it is credited to the author, and you remove that credit, that makes the result plagiarism. Nahaj 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note you have still not address MY issue, that credit was given the author before your May edit, and it qualified as plagerism without credit after your edit. After looking at the GFDL, I can't see how your edit didn't violate it. Nahaj 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Abd could you please point me to the part of the Wiki policy that says that a notice at the start of a section (not in the title) that the entire section was taken from another source is unacceptable? (Obviously it would be without permission... but I can't find anything that says it would be if the material was there with permission) Nahaj 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Message regarding your use of the No Multi License Template

In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.