Math Is Fun Forum

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 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

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.

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

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.”

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

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

My bad! Thanks for pointing it out. I don't do fraction very often. Not an excuse.

Bob,
I was taught deductive logic and has served me well, but I am not in the teaching field.
"One problem with people with deductive logic understanding, they are harder to lead. Isn't that a good thing rather than a problem." That depends on the government. Do they just want people who will work as a cog in their wealth and power generating system or do they want clear thinking people to be able to live their best lives.

Bob,
Thanks for your input. Email me and I will send the data to you, two hundred sets of sixty thousand binary bits put into Excel 365. The email address is in the Copyright notice. As for moving this, it is up to the forum. However, remember that computer programmers are taught that this is not possible.

One thing that I do not think people think about is that our country monitors other countries including their internet forums. Do you think other countries don't monitor our forums? Do you think that China or Russia already has this now! Yes. They monitor me. This is basic math. It is just as necessary as addition or subtraction for proper understanding of mathematics.

Yes Bob, there are a lot of tests for randomness. However, if one looks carefully, they are just approximations of randomness. I will be glad to send them to you or you can download them from NIST for free.

This is part of the data. This covers the entire 12,000,000 bits.
Maximum           Minimum        Spread   
0.504966667    0.493466667    0.0115           Mean
           
0.5                    0.499957314    4.2686E-05    Standard Deviation
           
298                    -392                    690                    Over and under 30,000
           
           
0.499999973    Standard Deviation of 12,000,000 bits       
0.5    Best Possible Standard Deviation of binary   

Thanks for everyone's interest.   
woodturner550

I’m very pleased that this forum understands what has been done. This is just the first step in bringing ‘new knowledge’ to all. This must be peer reviewed! It has been sent to NSA and they don’t reply or even acknowledge receiving the project.

Understanding that it is taught in computer classes that a digital computer cannot make ‘real’ random numbers because it follows a set of commands, it will always only make ‘pseudo’ random numbers. This is incorrect as has been shown. However, those educated in digital computers, including professors, are so blinded by their educated understanding that they won’t even look at possible ‘new knowledge.’

How to bring this forward is the part I don’t have the answer to. I’m hoping this forum entry will be shown to others and maybe people will open up to new learning.

Just as a side note, this has the possibility of being able to help in the stopping of ‘Ransomware’ attacks.

I understand that this is not a programing forum, but in this case, it is necessary to say that so far all that is known is the theory and the deductive logic. A little knowledge can be very dangerous. Do not be afraid that you have wasted your time. I will be showing how the algorithm is applied to get quality ‘random numbers.’ If ‘time’ is not used correctly the output will not have the needed quality.
I work with Python 3.7+ for the programing language. I also used PyCharm for my IDE, it is great.

# This program was written in spaghetti code style. This is done for clarity. Output is the same when written normally.
# Programing can be misunderstood by some people who want to try splitting hairs.
# Author: Leonard Dye, tomanytroubles@gmail.com, May 31, 2024 - Copyrighted 10/14/2023
import time
import random

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
        print("start time ", start_time)
        time.sleep(0.00000000000001)  # wait
        end_time = time.time()  # get second time
        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
        print("start time1 ", start_time1)
        time.sleep(0.00000000000001)  # wait
        end_time1 = time.time()  # get fourth time
        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)
        random_number = random.randint(lowest_random_number_needed, highest_random_number_needed)
        count += 1
        print(random_number)
        print("")
        print("")

if __name__ == '__main__':
    challenge()  # go to top, 'def challenge'

If there are any questions, please ask! I have tried to make things clear with out over writing the subject. If it is not clear to you then most likely there are other people with the same problem.
Thanks,
woodturner550