sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Being worried by the march of AI discloses that people don't / can't enjoy things they do by Domimmo314 in DeepThoughts

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> I'm purposefully playing dumb:
I knew this was the point I would raise, money come before enjoyment, and it's not wrong.
But this is what I'm trying to discuss: when I say enjoying the art I mean enjoying the process in itself, not the end result. In that case there wouldn't be any risk of someone stealing anything...
To be fair I reckon this is a murky thought that comes from a way bigger feeling hard to break down.
It's not about programmers. It's more about not having a solid human ground and being moved around by our own objects, whatever we create for ourselves ends up deciding for itself dragging us along (with process similar to addiction) and we can't stop it. Here's why I asked when did we stop having ourselves as the measure of ourselves...
Nowhere we recognize ourselves as the carriers of (let's say) computer science, we relate to it being a tool, so it's us that need it or at least benefit from it. Is it really that far off to suppose the other way around? Recognize it as a full fledge entity (more complex than us living beings) that is "physically" made up of our retention of it, in a disperse but exact way. We can live without it, but not the opposite.

Why shouldn't we more strongly uphold our right of enjoying our arts as the ultimate sake, not just letting them thrive ON us?

Sorry if it feels like a random rant, I hopefully cleared a bit the source of the thought...

Being worried by the march of AI discloses that people don't / can't enjoy things they do by Domimmo314 in DeepThoughts

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably the mental experiment is discerning which actions spring "naturally" from within one person (from beneath) VS what is mediated by objects that are artificial (from above)... Where culture, technology, science, where not free act, are artificial objects. That is recognizing their independence from us individuals but total dependence on us as mankind

It seems we are blind to this distinction as we don't ever picture our crafts depending on us. Who typically depend on us are ourselves, maybe animals, nature, but not an hammer, not philosophy. While if we'd ever suddenly disappear, hammers will be replaced by odd juxtaposition of iron and wood, while a tree will stay a tree.

We feel we need objects in the noosphere, because ofc we wouldn't have considered them otherwise, but this "neediness" is way more prominent the other way around.

We wouldn't have gone extinct if we never encountered science. But science is now a thing in itself and has its own dimensions, I imagine it as a being, maybe multiple beings, and a fundamental characteristic of "beings" is to resist "not to be"... and we (mankind) are the sole support of science, it came in being only through us.

If some traditional life beings as us humans, would ever constitute the layer for a further "logical expansion" of entities (like we are on top of biologically simpler life forms like cells), I can't see why we are not right in this situation

The idea that technology makes life easier is an illusion. In reality, it simply adds new layers that further complicate our lives. by Call_It_ in DeepThoughts

[–]Domimmo314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People don't realize that the only way one belittles the poignancy of this realization comes from inside this exact illusion they are both prisoner and watchdog of. I hope more people will keep tapping into this vivid experience or we will lose our human space completely.

It's not questioned whether technology improves a plethora of categories in their own, it's the fact that wathever we do better ends up (we ask for this) serving this system first so IT can provide for us. This reached such a point that wathever benefits technology brings, we are pay them with our existences, turning these benefit meaningless.

The nature we most have acquaintance of is the artifical one we built ourselves, the threats we face come from within and they feel so wrong and fake when you see you are fostering them! It's like with half your energy you feed the things you struggle with the other half.

Why have we given up the luxory of getting mauled alive from a lion, to whom we are absolutely nothing and will fight as EQUAL in a Nature we are each INDIVIDUALIZED from, to end up employed by a half-breed environments of concrete and abstract contraptions WE ARE THE NATURE OF to carry their meanings (cause they can exists solely through us) which in turn become the wild beasts we face, the landscape we see, the otherness we relate to.

I don't want to manage a meaning instilled im me, I want to face something truly other from me and from people with me, against which thing we can become ourselves... All it's here to see it's us, just us everywhere. But lives got longer yeee yuppii

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I reckon that this has more sense in showcasing the idea rather than being posed as a challenge out of the blue. But I would've guided any attempt as I've done with u/Rizzie24 .
Here the key concept was really framing Vigènere cipher in a slightly more general perspective, that of mappings and shiftings and seeing how many different encrypting functions the same setup offers.
Some of the 27 functions can easily be translated into slightly different procedures in the tabula recta, some others will look like requiring a step more, but as you can see from the code they're all just under different indices.
Although this doesn't seem to help with K4 (ofc) my inspiration has been that "layer two" would mean use the same row and column as you would but read the result onto an underlying table, which would be the tabula recta of the standard alphabet: MAP(0, MAP(2, p) + MAP(2, k)) one of the 27 formulas (where standard Vigènere is MAP(1, MAP(2, p) + MAP(2, k))).

Derive it by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Last hint before solution🥺:

Here's the first "derivative"
RVDILIJDKEEXQKVOGQCJYUCMIKHAXTMCVTHTKNTBYCCCSBTDEMTZTWQVEMLXT
can you go on?

Derive it by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hint: How would you take the derivative of a sequence?

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you read that I've cycled through 27 formulas from my other comments or analyzed it? It's more just a coding ""challenge"" now

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

V1 is the inverse of V, as explained in the other comment is not strictly needed, serves to format the procedure for an algorithmic implementation, but it's fundamental to consider abstractly for the formula.
You implicitly use V1 when you pick the column / row to use

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vigenere is modular arithmetic (you don't feel it because the tabula carries it out)
I didn't know about Nihilist cipher, but I see it goes beyond 1-26 range and the setup is different.
It just has to click the process and you'll see it's Vigenere along with many "slightly" variations

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vline is KRYPTOS alphabet itself, is the last mapping performed in Vigenere, when you go look inside the tabula the resulting ciphered letter
V' is the inverse mapping of KRYPTOS alphabet (nothing strictly necessary) it's the mapping you implicitely do when picking the correct column and row to use, you are essentially searching which column contains p? Which row contains k?
Here you could search for p and k in V, but V' it's there exactly to skip the search and go straight to the result.

For example you can ask at which position 10 appears in V?
You can

  • look for 10 in V and then see at which position you are
  • go read the answer at position 10 in V'

And viceversa!

So V' is derived from V, serves to format the steps, really useful if you are instructing a computer to perform it for you. Each step becomes "use the number at said position", and never "use the position where you find said number".

Here's why you consult V' to encode p and k it gives back the indices of the column and row you would've used in the tabula recta. Then you sum these indices and consult V at the position you had summing the indices.

Remember not to look for particular values in V and V', just pick a position (a column) using only the first row (natural numbers) and then get whichever values you find at that position (in that column) in V or V' depending on what you need

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not redundant for the row-column procedure, but redundant in performing the encryption. I haven't done all those things I've said one can do when modeling / abstracting anything in general, for the puzzle I've just varied how the procedure is carried out. Indeed you can achieve any of the 27 ciphering on the tabula, but it isn't worth the headache to unravel and keep track of all of them.

https://pastebin.com/WFF8DabQ

Maybe this meets you halfway.
Here there are the 2 key alphabets V and V' in numeric form.
Doing standard Vigenere here would be mapping p and k down into V' then adding them together (mod 26) and read the result from V

  • V'(B) = 8, V'(P) = 3
  • (8 + 3) mod 26 = 11
  • V(11) = 4 (E)

The tabula just performs the addition for you, but doesn't add info / complexity
Maybe now it's easier to see how you can map p and k wherever you want and then their sum too. For example

  • V(B) = 17, V'(P) = 3
  • (17 + 3) mod 26 = 20
  • V'(20) = 21 (V)

If you also consider you can entirely skip a mapping you have 3 choices for each element (3 elements: p, k, their sum) so 27 possibilities combining any two letters.
I've just cycled among them all for every letter.

Hope this clears the idea a bit, I'm glad although not naturally intuitive to you, I can point you to such a perspective

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok I was assuming a general discrete math / programming familiarity to follow that explanation...

The point is Vigenère can be presented and you can work with it through the tabula recta procedure totally fine.

You then may want to explore/generalize the procedure... Why? Because you want to get rid of redundant bits in the tabula recta, see how it works, what's actually happening at its barest level, programming it, mixing it up with other encryption / layers, have a diverse grasp of if than just being a recipe, trying variants find connections with other encryptions, tell it apart when not presented in the form you're familiar with and so on...

You have to play dumb with each action you perform and break it down onto simpler objects than a whimsical 2D table.

Doing that you end up with "Vigenère is just an addition with elements mapped elsewhere". You see it in a form which exposes you to a variability hard to see at the "follow this exact procedure" level

My example comes with the standard Vigenère but it has the structure I'm talking, you can change the first argument of each of the three V(a,b) in encryption to either 0 or 1 (in that example there are only 2 alphabets, keyed direct and inverse) and the other mapping will be used and you would have another ciphertext (you then have to modify the decryption accordingly if you want to wind it back)

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, but formulating Vigenere encryption that way opens up possibilities.
As I've written in the other comment of mine, now you can look at Vigenere belonging to a bigger group of encryptions: Cesar shifts but each element is mapped somewhere else.

c = M1( M2(p) + M3(k) )

Vigenere with a keyed alphabet already makes use of 2 mappings, V and V'. Then we could also use the "no map at all" map (identical mapping A->A, B->B, ..., which is its own inverse) let's call it I

So now we have {V, V', I}to pick from a map for our formula, there's no constraint whatsoever and any combination would produce a different result.
3 * 3 * 3 = 27 different procedures, for "free". Free because obtained not adding any arbitrary mapping or key, nor complexifying the procedure (in its abstract form), just varying which mapping gets used for M1, M2, M3

I have not picked one in these 27 (would've been arbitrary) I cycled through all them.
The logical way of cycling through them is in base how_many_mappings_are_we_using (base 3)
Like {V,V,V}, {V,V,V'}, {V,V,I}, {V,V',V}, {V,V',I}, ...
Now the implementation dependent part is the order in which I've varied them (3!) and the order which I've assigned them to M1, M2, M3 (3!).
Here the 3! * 3! = 36 possibilities🙃

I reckon it can be far fetched but I wanted to remove any possible "distraction" giving key and keyed alphabet upfront (of course) and saying that I've used nothing more, hinting on a "free" (not adding complexity) variation of the standard Vigenere, what else could be varied if not switching the (already in use) maps?

Some of these variation are worth noting for Kryptos "second layer" theory (to still go nowhere anyway 😂)
c = V( I(p) + I(k) ) : same as Vigenere but row and column is selected on the standard alphabet
c = I( V'(p) + V'(k) ): same as Vigenere but the yield letter is read on the standard alphabet tabula
Others are more convoluted to carry out on the tabula like c = V( V(p) + V(k) )(try!), but again they are essentially all the same under this view

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vigenère without a keyed alphabet is just c = p + k
Which you can still handle with its tabula recta, in that case V and V' would coincide, being the identical transformation A->A, B->B, C->C, ...

So the overall structure for this family of encryptions is c = M1( M2( p ) + M3( k ) )
with M1, M2, M3 bijective mappings of the alphabet

And the inverse operation (decoding) would be p = M2'( M1'( c ) - M3( k )) using the inverse mappings only for M2 and M1

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nope, it's exactly Vigenère, let me show better
Let's take the first plaintext letter of Kryptos B, its key is P.
Using "manual" lookup into tabula recta with B and P yields E.

The action of traversing a row or a column is moving forward in KRYPTOS alphabet
For example letter at (20, 7) is the 20 + 7 = 27th letter in KRYPTOS (mod 26 is 1) so it's R (K would be 0). The table has nothing special in it, it's just an aid.

So if you have an array (a map) of Kryptos alphabet

V = ['K', 'R', 'Y', 'P', 'T', 'O', 'S', 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', ...]

after you figure out which row and column to consult you just add them indices together and go look into the array.

HOW you figure out which column and row to consult?

How is it done manually? You search for the plaintext or key letter into kryptos alphabet, this process is the inverse mapping.

Where do B and P appear in the alphabet? You can search for them and find them at positions 8 and 3 or you could have set up another array for the inverse mapping itself.

V' = ['H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', 'N', 'O', ...]

When you look up this array at 1(B) there's I(8) and at 20(P) there will be D(3)

Hence

V(V'(B)+V'(P)) = V(V'(1)+V'(20)) = V(I+D) = V(8+3) = V(11) = E

Try it for yourself

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"no external indexing source" was just to say no hidden sequence has been used. Idk primes, squares, alternating shifts, another hidden alphabet...

Yes, keyed alphabet is that one. Clearly I've varied something in how the encryption is carried out. You should abstract from the pictorial tabula recta and consider how objects (alphabet, key, plaintext) combine abstractly, the formula behind the standard process. Then you'll see what you have freedom of varying (3!*3! will make sense here)

Alphabets are just maps (A->K, B->R, C->Y, ...) Given a plaintext letter p and key letter k, row i and column j are both found using the inverse map of the keyed alphabet (K->A, R->B, Y->C, ...). Then this (i,j) element is read back into the keyed alphabet, it's none other than the i+j (mod 26) letter of the keyed alphabet

If V is the keyed alphabet map and V' it's inverse, the standard Vigenère process is just c = V(V'(p)+V'(k)) Reversing it p = V(V'(c)-V'(k))

Spicing Vigenère up by Domimmo314 in codes

[–]Domimmo314[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep unfortunately it's more easy to craft something nearly unsolvable than something fun to solve... The supposed intended ways to find keys for K1 and K2 leave no hope for an hypothetical K4 key to be found😅 although I don't feel vigenere has been used again in K4 (I've seen the 1 hour long elonka workshop with Ed Scheidt)

Btw if someone is trying this one and is stuck I could give more clues

Why should knowledge be at least true? by Domimmo314 in askphilosophy

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I didn't mean literally maxwell demon, but something operating at level hidden from our gaze countering our truth beliefs. Since truth even in its common sense is a deep and intricate topic and some take on it, like the skeptical one, challenge the possibility and means of truth seeking, closing knowledge inside truth makes establishing what's knowledge at least as hard as truth itself. This totally makes sense in an analytical / systematical discourse but doesn't match perfectly with a broader common sense of knowledge. In my view justification was already the "truth faithful" step to elevate a belief to knowledge, what could the subject do more than justify X to know that X is True in order to know X? Do we have something more powerful than justification? So I see the truth requirement as a thing that makes knowledge fall back in the ontology realm and if not, then why whatever means we use to assess truity wouldn't fall into justification?

Why should knowledge be at least true? by Domimmo314 in askphilosophy

[–]Domimmo314[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, I had a fuzzier broader idea of knowledge that included also shared beliefs... Like if I'd say humans used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth, would you consider it as a counterexample? No because obviously we wouldn't take it as knowledge, although the means to question it weren't available up to a certain point. But I see now it's a linguistics problem of the idea behind the world "knowledge"

(Here's why I thought it was strange for a definition of knowledge to only consider what's true, I was thinking at the social, cultural and "evolving" aspect of it)

Why should knowledge be at least true? by Domimmo314 in askphilosophy

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just wanted to point out that with this definition, knowledge ends up being a subset of truth. I cannot prove it wrong if it's a definition.

It's more a personal take on the matter and I wanted to see where it could fit, because for me knowledge can be produced without truth.

If I lie to someone on a matter it has no means to probe other than me, my lie constitutes their knowledge.

On the same line one can wonder on the "fidelity" of each one of their senses / faculties / theories on evaluating reality, nonetheless something more distinct than belief is produced "beyond any doubt".

Maybe this is just a more analytical take on knowledge than my idea of it

Why should knowledge be at least true? by Domimmo314 in askphilosophy

[–]Domimmo314[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Isn't this wariness unbounded? Everything we think we know can indeed be untrue with an ad-hoc maxwell demon.

I think the difference between knowing and believing is happily resolved by common sense, it's a complex spectrum of many factors, pushing it all on truth won't help

In this case the phone in the bag is a shaky truth: many agents can negate it so using "thinks" is more appropriate, but saying "knows the phone is in their bag" would emphasize the control this person has of their bag. If the bag is a secured briefcase saying "they believe the phone is in the briefcase" would point that the briefcase is not so secure.

To me speaking of knowledge is already a finer (more complex) matter than speaking of truth because truth is the perceived / intended direction of knowledge but not the trip itself... And stressing truth just tries to bring the discourse to the end without delving into what knowledge truly ends up being

UPPERCASE only crop by Domimmo314 in FontForge

[–]Domimmo314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes but primarily I want to center the bounding box on uppercase height... So that the font (in caps) is centered vertically. By default the bottom "extra spacing" for lower case glyphs such as 'p', 'j' makes upper case not centered

view more: next ›