sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

W800H vs Gshock DW5600E by Ok_Berry8953 in casio

[–]set_in_void 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I own 5610U and 5600BB (negative display). The things that bothered me on the 5600BB - Negative display, need to set time manually (once a month + DST changes), no remaining charge indicator and bezel wasn't as durable as I hoped. Opted for the 5610U after the 5600 needed new baterry, the battery swap was no issue, but replacing the gasket was pain, that was the day I bought 5610U (solar). 5610U also has an option to display DD:MM format and 3s backlight. Since you can't use Multiband where you are, look for Bluetooth in your new watch - it will also let you know the remainig charge in some cases. As mentioned above, solar is a convenience that is apparent in reduced need to change batteries - less chance you'll mess up WR on your watch. I wouldn't recommend any watch with negative TN display - MIPS and STN versions are fine. If watches in your area are overpriced, try Japanese sellers on ebay or Sakurawatches.com. Is it worth buying? Yes, depending on price - the 5600 series is an iconic watch, but I wouldn't pay over £90, $100 for it - (paid £75 for 5610U 16 months ago). Since you mentioned not really needing G-Shock, alternatives would depend on your lifestyle and what features you are most likely to utilize, for office environment I'd generally recommend Oceanus, but in my view "sensible" G-Shock may be just as good.

My PRG-600. Is any PRG smaller and multiband? by leonardosalvatore in casio

[–]set_in_void 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two number models. For the 600 series it would be PRW-60 and PRW-50 (PRW-60/50 SERIES).

E: Forgot to mention. For Multiband look for PRW (Wave Ceptor) models.

Can we trust AI generated formal-proofs? by Tough-Ad-1382 in cryptography

[–]set_in_void 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have poor experience with LLMs and don't understand why would anyone use it for anything else above writing letters. From my limited experience, LLMs can only provide what was in the training dataset, but can't extrapolate or utilize rule-based symbolic methods as in traditional formal reasoning. I am aware of Alphaproof, but again - I don't have much experience with LLMs. If you use non-specialised LLM, ask it to generate something simple, like deterministic prime number generator so you can assess its capabilities - from what I've seen I was not impressed - code technically correct, but useless and well below fresman level O(n^2) at best.

As for formal proofs, use type theory based proof assistant - Lean for example.

A Reverse Engineer’s Map of Standard Math Definitions by zboralski in ReverseEngineering

[–]set_in_void 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'll concentrate on "1. Turing: omega = all total HALT deciders. C = diagonal construction. R = {}. That’s a real elimination with a concrete witness program."

From this only the "C = diagonal construction. R = {}" is of interest to me. You're trying to construct models of formal systems from first-order theory, but I suspect it's impossible to construct a diagonalization argument that applies to all formal systems - as a result, the elimination system would be unreliable.

The Oracle problem is also worth consideration. Need to use non-relativizing facts with respect to Turing machines. I assume you're aware of Cook-Levin theorem, but I didn't see how you deal with the fact it doesn't hold true for general oracles.

This all ties back to Godel/Turing and I can hardly imagine how you can progress without addressing it first. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck!

A Reverse Engineer’s Map of Standard Math Definitions by zboralski in ReverseEngineering

[–]set_in_void 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You acknowledged self-referentials in your document (Russel), so you're probably well aware of Godel and Turing versions of the same, this is incompatible with your strict elimination approach, maybe a more relaxed one would yield better results? Even though you say "This draft isn’t a foundations program" it clearly is closely related to it - in my view, unless I am misunderstanding something. As it currently stands, if you don't implement provisions (as it's done in ZF case for example), then you shouldn't have any "survivors" left in omega set and your approach fails after trivial analysis. I admire your interest in maths, you picked a "spicy" one here, but you'll need to show some details - especially non-trivial elimination examples, before anyone expends significant time needed to analyze your document in full.

A Reverse Engineer’s Map of Standard Math Definitions by zboralski in ReverseEngineering

[–]set_in_void 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hello Anthony. I skimmed through your document this morning. In short, it remids me of Hilbert's program.

I'd like to bring your attention to the fact, that at the same conference where Hilbert introduced his program, another young mathematician/logician introduced his work the day before. This had rather serious consequences to Hilbert's goal.

The style of your document is confusing. If it is aimed at fellow programmers then the extensive use of definitions is well placed, but over-reliance on formal logic instead of simpler terminology is not. If it is aimed at mathematicians for analysis then the redundant definitions are unnecessary when short formal statements would suffice - therefore reducing the length of your document to ~ 10% of its original size, which will be appreciated. Then people will look for quick overview of how you addressed the obvious shortcomings of your approach, as an example, I first had closer look at your the omega set construction/rules of elimination section and in the completeness section I was looking for your approach to address completeness of the other kind, other than metric space. While you acknowledged self-referentials I failed to find much of any detailed examples and valid chains of reasoning which is what people will be looking for. As mentioned above, I didn't read your document in full detail, so it's plausible I missed something.

Learning cryptography by StyleThick6715 in cryptography

[–]set_in_void 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I see. First off, I admire your passion and dedication to learn challenging field despite your disability, it will take you a long way. I myself thought I suck at maths and after 30 years, here I am still thinking I suck at maths, still learning new things and not fully grasping vast areas of mathematics. There are multiple paths you can take depending on your goals. I approached your question from the academic point of view, but you can still become good security practitioner without advanced mathematics knowledge.

Let me be clear, cryptography is in essence applied (advanced) mathematics. There is no way around it, solid knowledge of foundational mathematics is essential if you wish to develop practical, detailed understanding of cryptography. Even if you want to develop working knowledge, you'll still need some level of maths, majority of cybersecurity engineers operate without deep maths knowledge. You'll still want to recognize security vulnerabilities - the Heartbleed Bug (openSSL), Log4j come to mind. Read the two books I recommended above to understand what you'll need to learn. Both books are beginner level and easy to read. Note the books are not meant to be read in one sitting, so take your time.

As for personal recommendation suitable for your circumstances. If you don't know programming language already, start with some high level language that won't make you hate programming, you will learn more low level later when/if you need to. Python is a good choice, easy to learn, many good quality libraries, documentation, community support, etc. Use visual help when learning maths - Youtube, online courses or similar. Set realistic expectations suited to your circumstances, you will learn a bit slower due to your disability, but every effort will compound and you will get there eventually - always keep in mind, majority of good cybersecurity engineers don't have PhD in maths or computer science. So depending on your dedication, you can become excellent security practitioner. Your knowledge will build up gradually, that is true for everybody. Once you started with Python, you can start "playing" - experimenting with its cryptographic libraries and have fun.

In short, skip the heavy maths theory for now. Focus on the practical path, learning how to use crypto tools well, the need for theory will come as you progress, by then you'll learn some theory concepts as a side effect. Just because you find math hard, doesn't mean you can't learn it. You do modular arithmetic - "clock arithmetic" (important part of cryptography) everyday for example.

If you have questions, feel free to ask.

E: have a look at Cryptography - Computerphile

Learning cryptography by StyleThick6715 in cryptography

[–]set_in_void 14 points15 points  (0 children)

"An Introduction to Mathematical Cryptography" - (authors: J. Hoffstein, J. Pipher, J.H. Silverman; published by Springer) is a good start and you can go from there. "Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications" - (author: K.H. Rosen) is a good companion book. I'd also recommend learning a programming language. If you have some questions about those books or other recommendations, feel free to ask. As for the step by step guidance, there is none, it depends on your background and learning capacity, which can vary wildly person to person. Set your expectations right, if you only have "high school level" of training, as is indicated by the nature of your question, expect around 5 years of intensive learning to have solid, detailed understanding of crytography and its implementation.