On Tuesday, 16 November 2021 at 21:02:59 UTC, austin obyrne wrote:
> The Ada code is irrelevant - that's just the box. I don't give a damn
> what my coding looks like to any Ada enthusiast.
To someone showing an interest in your cipher, the demonstration program
is surprisingly important. It's their first exposure to your cipher in action, and
if you disrespect them (as you do), they are unlikely to want to look much
It's the same issue with your documentation. You make grandiose,
unproven claims like
"This cryptography uses ‘directed number-lines’ being used instead
of the universal number-line that may have arbitrary direction and
which has been used in cryptography ever since the very beginning
centuries ago. This means that the user of vector cryptography has
a vast domain of number-lines to draw from whereas traditional
cryptographers have had only one line ever that they were bound
to use repeatedly for every encryption/decryption of any number
of plaintext characters however great. Concealing their
transformations of plaintext into ciphertext is extremely difficult
and although it gives rise to some very fine algorithms that were
elegant and intelligent they did not really do the job of complete
obfuscation of the plaintext. The ciphers that they produced could
never really shake off the threat of statistical cryptanalysis."
That paragraph alone demonstrates that your mathematical
understanding of very basic number theory is sorely lacking.
> The Ada coding has nothing to do with the comprehension
> of the two things that are inextricably dependent on each
> other - namely : my invention of vector factoring and vector
> cryptography - both kosher mathematics - not to be taken
> for granted and very difficult to understand if you are not
> already deeply into that topic.
What's it like to never be wrong?
At least we agree that your Ada programs are rubbish.
You may have invented, or at least co-invented vector factoring,
and you have created a cipher out of it.
That cipher is weak. It may have been an interesting idea at
some point, but unless you produce someone with credibility
to prove otherwise, it's now a loser.