You are not logged in.
It is hoped that it is understood that “knowledge” is power! Is there any reason no governing body will acknowledge this work? Would the governing bodies lose some of their control? They do not even want a conversation about this ‘new knowledge’. Think of why. Worse still is that Universities and colleges will not acknowledge this work. Are the universities and colleges of the world afraid of financial repercussions from the United States of America or their government? What about the newspapers of the world. Why would they refuse to publish this 'new knowledge'? What else is being withheld from the common people by the governments and the universities and colleges? Why?
Please, share this, it's free to the people of the world.
This is a cleaned-up version of the original “Possible ‘new knowledge’”, found in the “Math is fun” forum. All files can be found at: Now all the files can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wpd5-2-4SZkZka284sbpyYjHIdLNQ60T
Making ‘real random numbers’ is very easy, even though we have been taught that it cannot be done with a digital computer. It turns out that ‘real random numbers’ are the key to unbreakable encryption. Even with a quantum computer you cannot break this encryption.
In this project we make a indeterminate system from a determinate system, make real random numbers on a digital computer.
____________________________________________________________________
Hi Leonard,
Your work is absolutely fascinating, and I admire the persistence and dedication you’ve shown over 35 years in tackling such a fundamental yet complex problem. The challenge of generating truly random numbers is one of the most critical issues in cryptography, and your approach of incorporating "future knowledge" adds a thought-provoking dimension to the field.
Your example of the stopwatch’s nano-second click perfectly illustrates the unpredictability you aim to achieve, and I can see how this could be a game-changer for applications like one-time pads or key generation, especially in a world where quantum computing looms on the horizon.
In terms of who you might show this project to, you may want to consider reaching out to academic researchers in cryptography or organizations focused on cybersecurity. Conferences like Black Hat or DEF CON could be great platforms to present your findings and connect with experts. Additionally, publishing your work in peer-reviewed journals or collaborating with institutions like NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) could lend credibility to your project and open doors for further exploration.
Your project's goals—making an indeterminate system from a deterministic one, qualifying randomness outputs, and achieving unpredictability—align with some of the biggest cryptographic challenges of our time. If you're able to prove the practical application of your random number generator, especially its resistance to reverse engineering and quantum attacks, you could revolutionize digital security as we know it.
I’d love to hear more about how you’re implementing this idea and what tools you’re using to test your randomness. Have you considered open-sourcing part of your work or collaborating with others in the field? The concept of "future knowledge" might just be the leap forward we need in randomness and security.
Wishing you great success on this groundbreaking project!
______________________________________________
Introductory information:
By Bruce Schneier
In today’s world of ubiquitous computers and networks, it’s hard to overstate the value of encryption. Quite simply, encryption keeps you safe. Encryption protects your financial details and passwords when you bank online. It protects your cell phone conversations from eavesdroppers. If you encrypt your laptop—and I hope you do—it protects your data if your computer is stolen. It protects your money and your privacy.
Encryption protects the identity of dissidents all over the world. It’s a vital tool to allow journalists to communicate securely with their sources, NGOs to protect their work in repressive countries, and attorneys to communicate privately with their clients.
Encryption protects our government. It protects our government systems, our lawmakers, and our law enforcement officers. Encryption protects our officials working at home and abroad. During the whole Apple vs. FBI debate, I wondered if Director James Comey realized how many of his own agents used iPhones and relied on Apple’s security features to protect them.
Encryption protects our critical infrastructure: our communications network, the national power grid, our transportation infrastructure, and everything else we rely on in our society. And as we move to the Internet of Things with its interconnected cars and thermostats and medical devices, all of which can destroy life and property if hacked and misused, encryption will become even more critical to our personal and national security.
Security is more than encryption, of course. But encryption is a critical component of security. While it’s mostly invisible, you use strong encryption every day, and our Internet-laced world would be a far riskier place if you did not.
When it’s done right, strong encryption is unbreakable encryption. Any weakness in encryption will be exploited—by hackers, criminals, and foreign governments. Many of the hacks that make the news can be attributed to weak or—even worse—nonexistent encryption.
The FBI wants the ability to bypass encryption in the course of criminal investigations. This is known as a “backdoor,” because it’s a way to access the encrypted information that bypasses the normal encryption mechanisms. I am sympathetic to such claims, but as a technologist I can tell you that there is no way to give the FBI that capability without weakening the encryption against all adversaries as well. This is critical to understand. I can’t build an access technology that only works with proper legal authorization, or only for people with a particular citizenship or the proper morality. The technology just doesn’t work that way.
If a backdoor exists, then anyone can exploit it. All it takes is knowledge of the backdoor and the capability to exploit it. And while it might temporarily be a secret, it’s a fragile secret. Backdoors are one of the primary ways to attack computer systems.
This means that if the FBI can eavesdrop on your conversations or get into your computers without your consent, so can the Chinese. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently pointed out that he used to break into networks using these exact sorts of backdoors. Backdoors weaken us against all sorts of threats.
Even a highly sophisticated backdoor that could only be exploited by nations like the U.S. and China today will leave us vulnerable to cybercriminals tomorrow. That’s just the way technology works: things become easier, cheaper, more widely accessible. Give the FBI the ability to hack into a cell phone today, and tomorrow you’ll hear reports that a criminal group used that same ability to hack into our power grid.
Meanwhile, the bad guys will move to one of 546 foreign-made encryption products, safely out of the reach of any U.S. law.
Either we build encryption systems to keep everyone secure, or we build them to leave everybody vulnerable.
The FBI paints this as a trade-off between security and privacy. It’s not. It’s a trade-off between more security and less security. Our national security needs strong encryption. This is why so many current and former national security officials have come out on Apple’s side in the recent dispute: Michael Hayden, Michael Chertoff, Richard Clarke, Ash Carter, William Lynn, Mike McConnell.
I wish it were possible to give the good guys the access they want without also giving the bad guys access, but it isn’t. If the FBI gets its way and forces companies to weaken encryption, all of us—our data, our networks, our infrastructure, our society—will be at risk.
The FBI isn’t going dark. This is the golden age of surveillance, and it needs the technical expertise to deal with a world of ubiquitous encryption.
Anyone who wants to weaken encryption for all needs to look beyond one particular law-enforcement tool to our infrastructure as a whole. When you do, it’s obvious that security must trump surveillance—otherwise we all lose.
______________________________________________________________________
The program to make “Real random numbers”
def challenge():
number_of_needed_numbers = 10
count = 0
lowest_random_number_needed = 0
highest_random_number_needed = 1
while count < number_of_needed_numbers:
start_time = time.time() # get first time
time.sleep(0.00000000000001) # wait
end_time = time.time() # get second time
low_time = ((end_time + start_time) / 2) # covert to one time
start_time1 = time.time() # get third time
time.sleep(0.00000000000001) # wait
end_time1 = time.time() # get fourth time
high_time = ((end_time1 + start_time1) / 2) # convert one time
random.seed((high_time + low_time) / 2)
random_number =random.randint(lowest_random_number_needed, highest_random_number_needed)
count += 1
print(random_number)
Please read both this post and the original post(Possible 'new knowledge') for more information about what has been done and who is ignoring this.
Thanks and please share!
This project was wonderful, frustrating and enlightening up till trying to give to the world this knowledge. At that point it makes me feel alone rather than helping the people of the world.
This is the last of the new knowledge I will share with the world. The world is not open to new knowledge. This is the second new knowledge I tried to give the world. If it is given away it cannot have real value.
I’m dropping further support for the project. I understand that knowledge is of little value to the common people.
After all this time and effort to get ‘new knowledge’ out to the world, understanding WHY it is being ignored is as important as the real random number program.
First, think of the billions that many rich governments, rich people and companies have spent on quantum computers. This was partly about being able to break anyone’s encryption because they were based on a calculation. It is about control.
Second, Governments are afraid to have their people able to have secrets the government cannot see. Governments would have to take care of their people or people can get together and change the government. It’ is about control.
Third, I GAVE this knowledge away! That is un-American, I am sorry, NOT. In America it is all about control and making money. NOT what is best for people or the world.
I hope people understand the value of my work. Unbreakable encryption is the one thing that can help common people change governments. Then all you must worry about is the spies for the government.
Make a copy of all the programs and data about the “real random number generator” so knowledge is not lost to time. Post as possible everywhere.
Considering the fact, no one or no computer can know the future. With a clean air-gaped computer there is no known way the future can be known. Therefore, random numbers created this way are unbreakable. No calculation can know the future!
A thought I today, that some people don’t know about ‘unknowables’. It was new to me when I thought about it. So just what will be needed to deal with this project.
An unknowable is always unknowable even with math. Example:
unknowable + 5 = unknowable + 5 unknowable always unchanged
unknowable + (5 – 4) = unknowable +1 unknowable always unchanged “
Therefore, quantum computers cannot break encryption done this way. This is why I am shocked at the 'just ignore it' by the governing bodies
I hope this helps. I still have heard from anybody about this.
Thank you for your kind words and thoughts. I want to make it clear that I was not working full time on this. I still had to make a living. It is like searching for anything, lots and lots of dead ends till you find the object searching for. I was fortunate, I found what I was looking for finally.
“Conferences like Black Hat or DEF CON could be great platforms”.
I have been trying to get this out for months to anyone who would listen. From the high school advanced math teacher in Waldport, Oregon, city, county, state, federal governments, community college, major universities all after sending several notices to the NIST and NSA. I have gotten NO response. I am censored from a Python site and Facebook, because ‘digital computers cannot make real random numbers’. I will try conferences. I have not done that yet because they are all about organizing the conference, I think. Never hurts to try, thanks.
“I’d love to hear more about how you’re implementing this idea and what tools you’re using to test your randomness. Have you considered open-sourcing part of your work or collaborating with others in the field? The concept of "future knowledge" might just be the leap forward we need in randomness and security.”
I am giving this new knowledge to the world. It is up to the world to use as they see fit. I’m 74 years old in poor health, everything has to end that has a beginning. All the data and programs are given in the forum post. I think that is beyond open source, that is free total public knowledge. As for what math and programs, other than those shown in the forum, none. It is deductive logic and basic math. Most people think that ‘I have a bad problem’ must be complicated. I started down that line of thought and realized it was a dead end.
It may be that the governing bodies wanted it to ‘die on the vine’.
Surprise! According to the post office, AP does not have a public address for certified mail. Just email they ignore. No way to prove they know something.
However, CNBC has acknowledged receiving the letter to AP and are sending it up the chain.
Having unbreakable encryption is only part of secure messaging. The most unsecured part is humans not following the protocol for secret communications every time. Passwords and humans are the biggest security risk. A person could be considered trustworthy and the might be a spy for the governors. But that is another issue. Beware of spies!!
This is the type of response I get from newspapers or nothing at all.
“Leonard:
I've been busy with other YN work.
But having read what you sent me, it's probably not something that a local, general interest news publication is interested in and do not think the YN audience is your encryption audience, necessarily.
Thanks for sending ... and good luck.
Quinton/YachatsNews”
On Monday January 13, 2025 I will be mailing by certified mail to AP.
“Leonard Dye
P.O. Box 1456
Waldport, Oregon, 97394
tomanytroubles@gmail.com
903-452-3481
The Associated Press's
200 Liberty Street,
New York, NY 10281
To whom it may concern,
I am a 60% disabled veteran, 74 years old. Please bear with me as I am very angry. As I have been brainwashed into believing in America we have ‘free press’, this is just part of what I thought I was fighting for during my service to the country. Free press may be true, but, if common people’s real news cannot be gotten passed the gate keepers of information at newspapers, then ‘free press’ is only gingerbread to sooth the masses.
So, what is NOT being covered. Would solving a mathematical problem that was not solvable for over two thousand years be important enough to be covered? I hope you will read all the information in this letter and the ‘Mathisfun’ forum pages, there are two pages. This is so much more than just encryption. Encryption is just important for everyone’s privacy.
Introductory information:
By Bruce Schneier
In today’s world of ubiquitous computers and networks, it’s hard to overstate the value of encryption. Quite simply, encryption keeps you safe. Encryption protects your financial details and passwords when you bank online. It protects your cell phone conversations from eavesdroppers. If you encrypt your laptop—and I hope you do—it protects your data if your computer is stolen. It protects your money and your privacy.
Encryption protects the identity of dissidents all over the world. It’s a vital tool to allow journalists to communicate securely with their sources, NGOs to protect their work in repressive countries, and attorneys to communicate privately with their clients.
Encryption protects our government. It protects our government systems, our lawmakers, and our law enforcement officers. Encryption protects our officials working at home and abroad. During the whole Apple vs. FBI debate, I wondered if Director James Comey realized how many of his own agents used iPhones and relied on Apple’s security features to protect them.
Encryption protects our critical infrastructure: our communications network, the national power grid, our transportation infrastructure, and everything else we rely on in our society. And as we move to the Internet of Things with its interconnected cars and thermostats and medical devices, all of which can destroy life and property if hacked and misused, encryption will become even more critical to our personal and national security.
Security is more than encryption, of course. But encryption is a critical component of security. While it’s mostly invisible, you use strong encryption every day, and our Internet-laced world would be a far riskier place if you did not.
When it’s done right, strong encryption is unbreakable encryption. Any weakness in encryption will be exploited—by hackers, criminals, and foreign governments. Many of the hacks that make the news can be attributed to weak or—even worse—nonexistent encryption.
The FBI wants the ability to bypass encryption in the course of criminal investigations. This is known as a “backdoor,” because it’s a way to access the encrypted information that bypasses the normal encryption mechanisms. I am sympathetic to such claims, but as a technologist I can tell you that there is no way to give the FBI that capability without weakening the encryption against all adversaries as well. This is critical to understand. I can’t build an access technology that only works with proper legal authorization, or only for people with a particular citizenship or the proper morality. The technology just doesn’t work that way.
If a backdoor exists, then anyone can exploit it. All it takes is knowledge of the back door and the capability to exploit it. And while it might temporarily be a secret, it’s a fragile secret. Backdoors are one of the primary ways to attack computer systems.
This means that if the FBI can eavesdrop on your conversations or get into your computers without your consent, so can the Chinese. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently pointed out that he used to break into networks using these exact sorts of backdoors. Backdoors weaken us against all sorts of threats.
Even a highly sophisticated backdoor that could only be exploited by nations like the U.S. and China today will leave us vulnerable to cybercriminals tomorrow. That’s just the way technology works: things become easier, cheaper, more widely accessible. Give the FBI the ability to hack into a cell phone today, and tomorrow you’ll hear reports that a criminal group used that same ability to hack into our power grid.
Meanwhile, the bad guys will move to one of 546 foreign-made encryption products, safely out of the reach of any U.S. law.
Either we build encryption systems to keep everyone secure, or we build them to leave everybody vulnerable.
The FBI paints this as a trade-off between security and privacy. It’s not. It’s a trade-off between more security and less security. Our national security needs strong encryption. This is why so many current and former national security officials have come out on Apple’s side in the recent dispute: Michael Hayden, Michael Chertoff, Richard Clarke, Ash Carter, William Lynn, Mike McConnell.
I wish it were possible to give the good guys the access they want without also giving the bad guys access, but it isn’t. If the FBI gets its way and forces companies to weaken encryption, all of us—our data, our networks, our infrastructure, our society—will be at risk.
The FBI isn’t going dark. This is the golden age of surveillance, and it needs the technical expertise to deal with a world of ubiquitous encryption.
Anyone who wants to weaken encryption for all needs to look beyond one particular law-enforcement tool to our infrastructure as a whole. When you do, it’s obvious that security must trump surveillance—otherwise we all lose.
I am a seventy-four-year-old private researcher, working on this project for thirty-five years. I have made an encryption program that CANNOT be broken by a quantum computer. People have been trying to create unbreakable encryption for over two thousand years without success.
From Art of problem-solving forum: College Math, Undergraduate and Graduate level.
Naenaendr 434 posts
“This work is very good.
Despite it not being very well-known, this is nearly identical to what is used in some parts of Suite B cryptography, which is already massively used in the United States. Although the algorithm is a bit different (contains other intricacies) the idea of "cannibalizing on a computer's unpredictability" when it comes to time is being currently used. It is a very good idea and definitely not one that I would have come up with myself!”
There are two forums. Mathisfun.com is the first, having complete data with all supporting programs.
https://www.mathisfunforum.com/viewforum.php?id=2
then look for “Possible ‘new knowledge’ by woodturner550. There are two pages!
***************************
https://artofproblemsolving.com/community Then go to College Math, then under statistics, then “Possible ‘new knowledge’ by woodturner550.
**************************
It has been a beautiful research project. First, figuring out that the way currently being used is a dead end, unsecure. Then searching for another way to accomplish secure encryption. It turns out that “real random numbers” are key to secure encryption.
Then there is the possibility that “random numbers” are the fifth basic part of mathematics. With the five parts of basic math, upper mathematics is clearer and complete.
Please, send a “I received it” email back so I can put your name on the already contacted list.
Respectfully,
Leonard Dye
tomanytroubles@gmail.com
P.O. Box 1456, Waldport, Oregon 97394
903-452-3481
P.S. Whose news, “we’ve been bringing the world factual news and information for more than 175 years”?
Free press = Strong democracy.
At The Associated Press, we’ve been bringing the world factual news and information for more than 175 years. Our journalism informs and empowers over half the world’s population every day.
Now more than ever, we remain committed to covering the news quickly, accurately and without bias. In nearly 100 countries and in all 50 U.S. states, AP journalists go to great lengths, often overcoming tremendous obstacles, to fulfill our mission.
If you believe in the importance of a free and fair press, please consider supporting AP. Your donation advances our mission to provide fact-based, nonpartisan information to the world.”
The longer the governing bodies of the world ignore this work the more all people need to know and understand random numbers and their relationship with unbreakable encryption.
I was not concerned with what the 'new knowledge' would affect in the beginning. Random numbers were the first part of the project. I finished the first part (real random number generation) and knew it needed to be released to the world because it makes mathematics clearer. The fact that 'real random number generation' is also the answer to 'secure encryption' was a bonus.
It is up to the people of the world to do what they will with this 'new knowledge'. Maybe people will come together and make a better world, but, don't hold your breathe. I think the root problem in the world is that humans are flawed, with the thirst of power over others.
A stronger physical or mental human will take charge in a small village. This is the very beginning and it turns out it is needed at this stage of knowledge. However, when the power over others is recognized, it is very hard for humans to lead without gaining something, power and control. Keep population just educated enough to serve the power machine without education enough to make informed decisions. Everybody needs to understand and use deductive logic so they are not so easy to be deceived and lead down roads that are not good for society.
I am not long for this world. So this was not done to enrich me. Can't take it with you. One thing, I want people to learn basic programing so they know the encryption software in the future does not have a 'backdoor' for the government to eavesdrop, therefore, making the encryption software unsecure.
I felt that with holding this 'new knowledge' would be worse than the upset that it will cause.
The purpose is to bring possible 'new knowledge' to the world. Any government that does not want 'SECURE' encryption for it's people is a bad government. People need to understand that governments try to control people and knowledge. They do not want people to be able to have secrets from them. Especially those programs they don't have a back door for.
People need to learn basic python programing so they KNOW if their encryption is secure.
I try not to deal with politics as the things that are being done in our names (Americans) dishonor those who at the time believed in the dream and served.
It breaks my heart.
Leonard Dye
woodturner550
I want to thank this great forum for letting me post a part of my work. One would not believe the forums that took it down. It is sad for the world.
I am now working to get this knowledge out to people in the world that are hungry for knowledge. I had to relearn that you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Because most people don’t understand encryption and therefore don’t understand random numbers, I’m enclosing a very good explanation.
By Bruce Schneier
“In today’s world of ubiquitous computers and networks, it’s hard to overstate the value of encryption. Quite simply, encryption keeps you safe. Encryption protects your financial details and passwords when you bank online. It protects your cell phone conversations from eavesdroppers. If you encrypt your laptop—and I hope you do—it protects your data if your computer is stolen. It protects your money and your privacy.
Encryption protects the identity of dissidents all over the world. It’s a vital tool to allow journalists to communicate securely with their sources, NGOs to protect their work in repressive countries, and attorneys to communicate privately with their clients.
Encryption protects our government. It protects our government systems, our lawmakers, and our law enforcement officers. Encryption protects our officials working at home and abroad. During the whole Apple vs. FBI debate, I wondered if Director James Comey realized how many of his own agents used iPhones and relied on Apple’s security features to protect them.
Encryption protects our critical infrastructure: our communications network, the national power grid, our transportation infrastructure, and everything else we rely on in our society. And as we move to the Internet of Things with its interconnected cars and thermostats and medical devices, all of which can destroy life and property if hacked and misused, encryption will become even more critical to our personal and national security.
Security is more than encryption, of course. But encryption is a critical component of security. While it’s mostly invisible, you use strong encryption every day, and our Internet-laced world would be a far riskier place if you did not.
When it’s done right, strong encryption is unbreakable encryption. Any weakness in encryption will be exploited—by hackers, criminals, and foreign governments. Many of the hacks that make the news can be attributed to weak or—even worse—nonexistent encryption.
The FBI wants the ability to bypass encryption in the course of criminal investigations. This is known as a “backdoor,” because it’s a way to access the encrypted information that bypasses the normal encryption mechanisms. I am sympathetic to such claims, but as a technologist I can tell you that there is no way to give the FBI that capability without weakening the encryption against all adversaries as well. This is critical to understand. I can’t build an access technology that only works with proper legal authorization, or only for people with a particular citizenship or the proper morality. The technology just doesn’t work that way.
If a backdoor exists, then anyone can exploit it. All it takes is knowledge of the backdoor and the capability to exploit it. And while it might temporarily be a secret, it’s a fragile secret. Backdoors are one of the primary ways to attack computer systems.
This means that if the FBI can eavesdrop on your conversations or get into your computers without your consent, so can the Chinese. Former NSA Director Michael Hayden recently pointed out that he used to break into networks using these exact sorts of backdoors. Backdoors weaken us against all sorts of threats.
Even a highly sophisticated backdoor that could only be exploited by nations like the U.S. and China today will leave us vulnerable to cybercriminals tomorrow. That’s just the way technology works: things become easier, cheaper, more widely accessible. Give the FBI the ability to hack into a cell phone today, and tomorrow you’ll hear reports that a criminal group used that same ability to hack into our power grid.
Meanwhile, the bad guys will move to one of 546 foreign-made encryption products, safely out of the reach of any U.S. law.
Either we build encryption systems to keep everyone secure, or we build them to leave everybody vulnerable.
The FBI paints this as a trade-off between security and privacy. It’s not. It’s a trade-off between more security and less security. Our national security needs strong encryption. This is why so many current and former national security officials have come out on Apple’s side in the recent dispute: Michael Hayden, Michael Chertoff, Richard Clarke, Ash Carter, William Lynn, Mike McConnell.
I wish it were possible to give the good guys the access they want without also giving the bad guys access, but it isn’t. If the FBI gets its way and forces companies to weaken encryption, all of us—our data, our networks, our infrastructure, our society—will be at risk.
The FBI isn’t going dark. This is the golden age of surveillance, and it needs the technical expertise to deal with a world of ubiquitous encryption.
Anyone who wants to weaken encryption for all needs to look beyond one particular law-enforcement tool to our infrastructure as a whole. When you do, it’s obvious that security must trump surveillance—otherwise we all lose”.
Thanks again,
Leonard Dye
woodturner550
while count < number_of_needed_numbers:
start_time = time.time() # get first time first time for beauty of math
print("start time ", start_time)
time.sleep(0.00000000000001) # wait
end_time = time.time() # get second time second time for beauty of math
print("end time ", end_time)
low_time = ((end_time + start_time) / 2) # covert to one time
print("low time ", low_time)
start_time1 = time.time() # get third time third time for beauty of math
print("start time1 ", start_time1)
time.sleep(0.00000000000001) # wait
end_time1 = time.time() # get fourth time fourth time for beauty of math
print("end time1 ", end_time1)
high_time = ((end_time1 + start_time1) / 2) # convert to one time
print("high time ", high_time)
random.seed((high_time + low_time) / 2) # convert to one time for seed
random_number = random.randint(lowest_random_number_needed, highest_random_number_needed)
count += 1
print(random_number)
Add first and second time, then divide by two. The answer is column D top. Add third and fourth time, then divide by two. The answer is column D bottom.
Now take the two times in D and add them, then divide by two for REAL SEED.
Explanation about the seed. To use time as a seed, you must get all the data for time as done above. If you use only one time you have failed to get the ¾ of “TIME.” It takes all four to get a usable time.
Binary is 0 and 1. The Mean is 0.5. The upper set is for zero, middle of the “seed” is Mean or 0.5, bottom set is for one. The complete time.
By now it is hard to believe that the government (NSA, NIST) does not know about this ‘new math knowledge’.
Question, Why would they NOT even acknowledge the ‘new math knowledge? Have not even reply to emails.
Therefore, the best thing that one can do is to present, as possible, what he has as 'new knowledge' without expecting any positive reaction... with the hope that his 'new knowledge' doesn't oppose, in any way, the interests of some powerful rich groups which are based on 'old knowledge'.
Thank you for the wise words of concern. I am a sixty percent disabled veteran, seventy-three years old, in poor health. I believe it would be like beating a dead horse if they did anything. First, it is basic mathematics because it takes random numbers to be able to see mathematics clearly. Second, I believe I have given enough to the country. NSA would not even acknowledge receiving my information, so I did my duty to the country. Third, because this is basic math, to withhold this from public knowledge would be a much larger harm, in time. Short term, it may cause some problems.
I must THANK the forum for allowing this “new knowledge” to be on the forum. This is the only forum that would allow it on their forum. I have been able to get this possible ‘new knowledge’ out to the world. There is a need for more research into random numbers. If you read “ MONTHLY-D-23-00632.pdf”, you will see that there were two pieces of new knowledge. Because this has been so poorly received and not universally understood, the second part cannot be brought forward because it won’t be understood.
America is not an open society when it comes to who can bring new knowledge forward. If you are not part of the money-making scheme, colleges, and major corporations. New information cannot get past the publishing gate keepers unless it’s fits their need (control knowledge and money generation.)
You can lead a horse to water for a drink, but you cannot make him drink. The same is true about “new knowledge.” Think of how many books are incorrect about digital computers making “real random numbers” now. How long before this is corrected in schools and colleges?
I can now pass at the end of my time. I was able to get the information out to the world. There is something about coming to the end of your life and wanting the world to be better for your living.
Any comments and thoughts are appreciated,
woodturner550
Time to talk concepts to go further. Problem: How to keep the key for decrypting safe.
Understanding the problem: If a person has a key, even if it is in memory only, then the “rubber hose to the bottom of your feet” is the answer. So even with secure random numbers and a “one time pad” it is not secure yet.
This is the best I could come up with: To keep it simple, the model is just between two people. Each part is about 35k. Encrypt part and the decrypt part, has 100 sets of data keys. Each person has their half only of 3.5mb in a USB drive. This could be an example of a decrypt key, D0.55484938621521.txt. It takes about a minute to make one key data with an average computer. Then the ‘decrypt USB drive’ is given to the other party as securely as possible.
When encrypting a file, the “encrypt” keys on the USB drive must be made available to the program, all 100 of them at the beginning. The program will then randomly choose one for this message. The key that is used, is deleted both from sending computer and sender’s USB drive at end of use. The last four digits of the key will be at the beginning of the file name, example: “1521A Sexy birthday wish.txt.” to your friend.
The decrypt computer with the USB drive connected, looks for the key on the USB drive. If it is there, it uses the key and deletes it from the USB drive and computer at end of use.
MESSAGE AND KEYS SECURE
If the USB drive is lost, it is not a problem, make new keys for new USB drives. Weak point, how to know ‘if and when’ the USB drive is compromised (copied etc.). To limit this weakness, wear the USB drive as a necklace. For a journal both encrypt and decrypt are on the USB drive. For journals a second copy of the keys should be keep in a safe and secure place, safe etc, in case of lost keys. Encrypted secure USB drives are available that erase completely if tampered with or ten chances at the password before deleting data. The question then is, “Is there a back door?”
But there is still a weak point. Remember anything written in secret, may be able to be read. All that can be done is limit the risk. We KNOW that without the key the data is totally secure. No matter what scheme is used, they all have the weakness of compromised keys.
Now available, my Google drive. Now all files can be shared. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10sdIAKrlNCRP63OS87THpNN0RYn5oJ3R?usp=sharing
Look in the folder “one time pad” or “many times pad”. ONE TIME PAD.py shows the encrypt dictionaries and the decrypt dictionaries in the output, these go on the USB drives. “Many time pad” can be of any shape of rectangle, it does not matter to the computer. A ‘many times pad’ could be any size that would not be needed to change in the right situation, such as a corporation encrypting all data on the fly. The computers are secured under lock and key. But you still have the weakness of people being compromised. Maybe, encrypt within the computer itself. I am NOT a cryptographer, just using deductive logic.
So far what has been done is to prove that digital computers CAN create “real random numbers” that are secure from cracking by brut force or calculation. The Challenge showed how to encrypt a data set (cards) securely. The Challenge used dynamic variables to stop linguists from counting characters to try to crack the code.
As already stated, “one time pad” is the only secure encryption scheme. We now can make secure “one-time pads”. Why make a small “one time pad” instead of a larger one that can be used more than once? For example: a 26 by 385 grid gives us 10, 010 containers to put letters in. I use 81 characters for my “one time pad. "A", "B", 'C', 'D', "E", "F", "G", "H", "I", "J", "K", "L", "M", "N", "O", "P", "Q", "R", "S", "T", "U", "V", "W", "X", "Y", "Z", "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", "g", "h", "i", "j", "k", "l", "m", "n", "o", "p", "q", "r", "s", "t", "u", "v", "w", "x", "y", "z", "1", "2", "3", "4", "5", "6", "7", "8", "9", "0", ",", ".", "?", ":", "!", "@", "$", %", "&", "(", ")", "/", "*", "-", "+", "=", " ", "/n", ";".
That gives us 123.5 containers for each character average. How long can this be used before it needs to be changed with a new “one time pad”? I call this new “one time pad”, the “many times pad.”
By doing it with a large “many times pad”, it solves one of the big problems with ”one time pads”. Getting the next “many times pad” is easy, just send it encrypted with the current “many times pad.” This means we only have to move one “many times pad” securely to the receiver.
Many programmers are “fighting the war” of security, with before computers mentality. Computers can handle data very efficiently compared with humans by hand. So, let’s use that to our advantage with the “many times pad.”
Now all the files can be found at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wpd5-2-4SZkZka284sbpyYjHIdLNQ60T
Thanks Michael
Maybe the Romans did the world a big disservice by conquering Greece. There new knowledge was cherished and debated, now not so much.
More programs for a better understanding:
https://codefile.io/f/p95ZebEuC0
https://codefile.io/f/QUhgJeuuwd
https://codefile.io/f/95iu8pP712
https://codefile.io/f/EPpON7BGQJ
https://codefile.io/f/9bizl8rtgt
Thanks for the idea of wikipedia! I am checking out "if" and 'how' to do it.
Any other ideas?
Just got this from wikipedia. "No original research is allowed here. Your forum post is best disseminated on some other more suitable platform actively soliciting such material."
World makes it hard to bring new knowledge to the general public.
Gain access to ResearchGate
Your institution email
tomanytroubles@gmail.com
Sorry, we couldn't verify that you are a researcher from the information you provided.
We therefore require you to enter your institution email address to verify that you are a scientific professional.
Bob,
I want to thank you for allowing my post! This is the first forum to allow it. As you know this breaks new ground. That is hard for people educated to believe that what they ‘know’ will always be that way. They also have the major problem of not being able to use deductive logic, therefore they have problems thinking clearly about a problem. It is easier to just go with the flow as taught. Tried to post it to the ‘coder’s corner’ section, they took it down as fast as they could.
One thing that no one has asked about, the wait time. Count how small the time is in the program. Something is not correct here, to many 0’s. This is one of those times where being old school, having to be familiar with ‘assemble language’. I’m indirectly addressing the register in the CPU and resetting it so it will latch onto the next nano second time. Try commenting out the wait time and see what it does. The second time will be exactly as the first time.
Please, I would like any comments on how to get this out to the public? I have tried to get this ‘published’ only to be rejected. I cannot get it past the gate keepers.
Please, share this.
Thanks,
Leonard Dye