Possible 'new knowledge'

KerimF · 2024-07-18 21:40:40

I am 75 and math is my favorite since I was teen.
Although I still enjoy working with numbers and equations in designing various products in electronics, I can no more be interested in fields not related to my work.
In these hard days, I am a poor boss who tries his best to gain his daily bread and of his few assistants despite the lack of electricity and fuel.

When I was younger and living in the past golden years, having the chance to study and apply, in some ways, your interesting work would have been a great gift to me.

woodturner550 · 2024-08-18 08:05:34

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.

KerimF · 2024-08-19 00:28:15

woodturner550 wrote:

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.

They surely have their good reasons to play ignorance, openly in the least, though they are surely not less intelligent than we are
I am afraid that one has to be rich (I mean rich really) or is serving a powerful rich group to be acknowledged as a first step.

For instance, I didn't hear yet of a well-known inventor, in the human history, who wasn't of a rich family or wasn't serving a rich group (a company).
I mean, this is life since always, we like it or not.
Simply speaking, what is happening to you is natural. It also happens to any other ordinary person around the world (as I, for example). This is why every time I try to find/discover something new, I see if it can be useful to me in the first place, because the world has no time to listen to me

Anyway, I hope that such negative reactions don't prevent you to keep thinking of new ideas.

woodturner550 · 2024-09-10 08:17:28

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.

woodturner550 · 2024-09-25 06:29:10

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

Oculus8596 · 2024-09-25 10:35:36

woodturner550 wrote:

KerimF wrote:
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 am also former military. I have a question for you.
What's your take on illegal aliens allowed to get free medical and dental service at all VA Hospitals across the United States under the Biden/Harris administration? The VA Hospital is for VETERANS not for people who never served. I get stuck with copayments for medical service and don't qualify for dental. What do you say?

woodturner550 · 2024-09-25 16:24:09

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

KerimF · 2024-09-25 17:50:45

I wish I am wrong, but I can't see how someone could be secure really while he uses tools of advanced technology done by some others.
On the other hand, powerful rich groups only have the means to offer such advanced tools to the world's multitudes. And one of the natural truths (revealed clearly 2000 years ago) the members of these powerful rich groups have no right to be sincere while addressing the world's multitudes openly, otherwise they become traitors. But to be sane, it is always better for someone to believe he is secure (after all, one is secure while he obeys their rules).

For instance, two decades ago, for fun, I wrote a PC program (for DOS since I am not allowed to download any new high language compiler) to encrypt files using a private protocol. If a file is encrypted 'n' times, the result is 'n' new files which are different in their data and size. Naturally, if any of these 'n' files is decrypted, their same original file is restored. I said, I did it for fun, because using it on the internet will mean (to the watchers) that I am hiding important secrets that their computers cannot recover

Oculus8596 · 2024-09-26 02:34:59

woodturner550 wrote:

I am 73 years old, and a private researcher. What I have been working on for thirty-five years, most people will not understand. However, most people agree and understand this fact, “currently the future is unknowable before it happens.” Proof of this, “if we knew what was going to happen in the future, we would have a perfect society able to sidestep or eliminate problems before they happen. The stupidity is thinking that “you know the future.” or “what will happen in the future is obvious.” If that were true, we would all be Bitcoin millionaires.”
The PROBLEM is creating random numbers using a formula, as currently done. This is incorrect. Generating random numbers caused by a formula can be reverse engineered. Therefore, they are not secure. I can make secure random numbers because I do not use a formula, I use future knowledge.
Example of future knowledge: When you click the button on a stopwatch to start an event, the exact nano-second is unknowable till it happens.
I am interested in learning who and how to show this project too. Data as Excel365 and Word365.
Understanding Project Goals:
1. Make an indeterminate system from a deterministic system.
2. Formula to qualify ‘random number generator’ output.
3. Create “Real Random Numbers” with a digital computer.
Output goals:
1. It looks random. This means that it passes all the statistical tests of randomness that we can find.
2. It is unpredictable. It must be computationally infeasible to predict what the next random bit will be, given complete knowledge of the algorithm or hardware generating the sequence and all the previous bits in the stream.
3. It cannot be reliably reproduced. If you run the sequence generator twice with the exact same input (at least as exact as humanly possible), you will get two completely unrelated random sequences.
The output of a generator satisfying these three properties will be good enough for a one-time pad, key generation, and any other cryptographic applications that require a truly random sequence generator.
This project’s output is unbreakable even with quantum computers.
Thanks,
Leonard Dye

What is the purpose of this post?

woodturner550 · 2024-09-26 06:19:30

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.

Oculus8596 · 2024-09-26 09:08:14

woodturner550 wrote:

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 don't know much about python programming or any other computer programming secrets that the government is keeping from the rest of the world.

I will say this:

1. All governments are corrupt.

2. In the United States, the government has been on a mission to dump down its citizens for many decades. Why not? The dumber society is the easier to control.

3. I don't want to get political in this math group but the democratic party has been in favor of SIMPLIFYING math and physics courses for as long as they have been in office. They are not interested in a rational thinking society. It doesn't serve their purpose for you and I to exercise daily common sense. The less math we know, the less computer knowledge we have, the less reading comprehension we have and the worst our writing skills become, the happier the far left is, honestly.

4. As I age, solving math problems is my suduko puzzle, it's my cross word puzzle; it keeps my brain cells alive. No pun intended.

5. To be honest with you, my circle of friends is very small for three reasons:

A. I am pretty much a loner.

B. There are not many people who enjoy math and education as much as I do. It's hard for me to find people with similar interests.

C. I can EASILY SEE how spurious and corrupt the world has become. Thus, it is so hard for me to trust others.

ALL GOVERNMENTS do not want it's people to be well-informed. Like I said before, the dumber we are, the easier to control and brainwash. ALL GOVERNMENTS are bad, corrupt and not trustworthy.

woodturner550 · 2024-09-26 16:27:20

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.

KerimF · 2024-09-27 03:23:24

1. All governments are corrupt.

I am afraid, this is a natural fact (by design). Therefore, nothing and no one can change it.

2. In the United States, the government has been on a mission to dump down its citizens for many decades. Why not? The dumber society is the easier to control.

As far as I know, this tactic has been also followed in all other countries since many decades ago. I noticed it too in my country.

4. As I age, solving math problems is my suduko puzzle, it's my cross word puzzle; it keeps my brain cells alive. No pun intended.

Although my private business is almost paralyzed since after year 2011 due to world's events and regulations, I keep designing new products (that needs lots of math) just to keep my brain cells alive.

5. To be honest with you, my circle of friends is very small for three reasons:

You are fortunate for having a very small circle of friends. My circle has zero radius
There is no one around me lately who enjoys math and education. It seems almost all people are attracted by other things.
About trust, two humans cannot decide to trust each other really before they discover each other while facing real hard times together.

ALL GOVERNMENTS do not want it's people to be well-informed. Like I said before, the dumber we are, the easier to control and brainwash. ALL GOVERNMENTS are bad, corrupt and not trustworthy.

Any government has to be run by rich persons or serving rich ones. Naturally, they have to protect each other, besides being protected by their masters (working behind the scenes). This was simplified 2000 years ago when it was said that a rich man is not supposed to enter ...

Last edited by KerimF (2024-09-27 03:24:00)

woodturner550 · 2024-12-17 10:07:23

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.

KerimF · 2024-12-17 22:42:49

woodturner550 wrote:

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 am afraid if you will have the chance to meet someone of the governmental high positions you will likely hear him say:
We have already unbreakable encryption, and the People, we take care of and protect, doesn't need it really. Anyway, thank you for your kind offer to help.

(Somehow, I lived this scenario 45 years ago.)

woodturner550 · 2025-01-10 10:17:06

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.”

KerimF · 2025-01-13 03:39:20

I just wonder how an unbreakable encryption can be made breakable at certain sides (the right destinations), and it is supposed to be always unbreakable otherwise, despite the presence of all sorts of spies in all sides!

woodturner550 · 2025-01-13 06:25:02

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!!

woodturner550 · 2025-01-13 10:11:33

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.

Thaters · 2025-01-14 00:41:49

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!

woodturner550 wrote:

I am 73 years old, and a private researcher. What I have been working on for thirty-five years, most people will not understand. However, most people agree and understand this fact, “currently the future is unknowable before it happens.” Proof of this, “if we knew what was going to happen in the future, we would have a perfect society able to sidestep or eliminate problems before they happen. The stupidity is thinking that “you know the future.” or “what will happen in the future is obvious.” If that were true, we would all be Bitcoin millionaires.”
The PROBLEM is creating random numbers using a formula, as currently done. This is incorrect. Generating random numbers caused by a formula can be reverse engineered. Therefore, they are not secure. I can make secure random numbers because I do not use a formula, I use future knowledge.
Example of future knowledge: When you click the button on a stopwatch to start an event, the exact nano-second is unknowable till it happens.
I am interested in learning who and how to show this project too. Data as Excel365 and Word365.
Understanding Project Goals:
1. Make an indeterminate system from a deterministic system.
2. Formula to qualify ‘random number generator’ output.
3. Create “Real Random Numbers” with a digital computer.
Output goals:
1. It looks random. This means that it passes all the statistical tests of randomness that we can find.
2. It is unpredictable. It must be computationally infeasible to predict what the next random bit will be, given complete knowledge of the algorithm or hardware generating the sequence and all the previous bits in the stream.
3. It cannot be reliably reproduced. If you run the sequence generator twice with the exact same input (at least as exact as humanly possible), you will get two completely unrelated random sequences.
The output of a generator satisfying these three properties will be good enough for a one-time pad, key generation, and any other cryptographic applications that require a truly random sequence generator.
This project’s output is unbreakable even with quantum computers.
Thanks,
Leonard Dye

woodturner550 · 2025-01-14 07:24:06

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’.

woodturner550 · 2025-01-15 09:53:01

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.

Last edited by woodturner550 (2025-01-15 10:10:32)

Math Is Fun Forum

#26 2024-07-18 21:40:40

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#27 2024-08-18 08:05:34

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#28 2024-08-19 00:28:15

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#29 2024-09-10 08:17:28

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#30 2024-09-25 06:29:10

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#31 2024-09-25 10:35:36

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#32 2024-09-25 16:24:09

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#33 2024-09-25 17:50:45

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#34 2024-09-26 02:34:59

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#35 2024-09-26 06:19:30

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#36 2024-09-26 09:08:14

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#37 2024-09-26 16:27:20

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#38 2024-09-27 03:23:24

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#39 2024-12-17 10:07:23

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#40 2024-12-17 22:42:49

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#41 2025-01-10 10:17:06

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#42 2025-01-13 03:39:20

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#43 2025-01-13 06:25:02

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#44 2025-01-13 10:11:33

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#45 2025-01-14 00:41:49

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#46 2025-01-14 07:24:06

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

#47 2025-01-15 09:53:01

Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

Board footer