Comments on: Nov 9th (day 27): Zero knowledge proofs http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/ Miscellaneous development stuff Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:50:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ross Lee Graham, PhD http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/comment-page-1/#comment-9533 Ross Lee Graham, PhD Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:21:00 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=307#comment-9533 In computer jargon it would be better to say that the elements of the proof have no designated deference. In a computer we can reference an address. When we dereference the address we are seeing what is at that location (address). If we use the word 'gravity' it is like an address, and for it to have meaning to us we must dereference this reference. In computer jargon it would be better to say that the elements of the proof have no designated deference. In a computer we can reference an address. When we dereference the address we are seeing what is at that location (address). If we use the word ‘gravity’ it is like an address, and for it to have meaning to us we must dereference this reference.

]]> By: Ross Lee Graham, PhD http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/comment-page-1/#comment-9532 Ross Lee Graham, PhD Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:15:00 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=307#comment-9532 You might be interested in Budhist logic as it is not extensional as Western logic developed first by Aristotle. It is intensional (notice the /s/). For basic arguments it uses 5 parts. The first part is a description from an experience intended for interpretation. It is then likened to an immediate experiences, etc. In other words the domain is part of the argument. In trying to differentiate the difference between extensional and intensional before you do your own research on the subject concerning domains, consider: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. That this is an extensional argument is indicated by the use of quantifiers. Manness has mortalness. Socrates has manness. Therefore Socrates has mortalness. That this is an intensional argument is indicated by the use of qualities in place of quantifiers. I spent some time in India studying Budhist logic translating from Sanskrit and from Tibetan with a group of Tibetans. You might be interested in Budhist logic as it is not extensional as Western logic developed first by Aristotle. It is intensional (notice the /s/). For basic arguments it uses 5 parts. The first part is a description from an experience intended for interpretation. It is then likened to an immediate experiences, etc. In other words the domain is part of the argument.
In trying to differentiate the difference between extensional and intensional before you do your own research on the subject concerning domains, consider:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

That this is an extensional argument is indicated by the use of quantifiers.

Manness has mortalness.
Socrates has manness.
Therefore Socrates has mortalness.

That this is an intensional argument is indicated by the use of qualities in place of quantifiers.

I spent some time in India studying Budhist logic translating from Sanskrit and from Tibetan with a group of Tibetans.

]]> By: Bumblebee Labs Blog » Blog Archive » Provably Unsolvable Security http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/comment-page-1/#comment-393 Bumblebee Labs Blog » Blog Archive » Provably Unsolvable Security Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:37:50 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=307#comment-393 [...] explainations of infeasibility on a certain degree of faith and deferrel to expert opinion, we use zero knowledge rather than first order [...] [...] explainations of infeasibility on a certain degree of faith and deferrel to expert opinion, we use zero knowledge rather than first order [...]

]]> By: Bumblebee Labs Blog » Blog Archive » Nov 10th (day 28): The crisis in economics http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/comment-page-1/#comment-250 Bumblebee Labs Blog » Blog Archive » Nov 10th (day 28): The crisis in economics Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:37:02 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=307#comment-250 [...] a result, economists have developed a simple zero knowledge proof: At the first obvious sign that the other person is not a complete insider of economics, stop [...] [...] a result, economists have developed a simple zero knowledge proof: At the first obvious sign that the other person is not a complete insider of economics, stop [...]

]]> By: Edmund in Tokyo http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/comment-page-1/#comment-249 Edmund in Tokyo Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:15:42 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=307#comment-249 One more very useful zero-knowledge proof along the same lines: How bad are the opponents' arguments? This is particularly useful in political situations where there's a group on the other side with plenty of resources to attack a case. If they've had to resort to misleading use of statistics and logic that doesn't stand up to a bit of thought, there's a good chance that the case they're attacking is sound. One more very useful zero-knowledge proof along the same lines: How bad are the opponents’ arguments? This is particularly useful in political situations where there’s a group on the other side with plenty of resources to attack a case. If they’ve had to resort to misleading use of statistics and logic that doesn’t stand up to a bit of thought, there’s a good chance that the case they’re attacking is sound.

]]> By: Edmund in Tokyo http://devblog.bumblebeelabs.com/nov-9th-day-27-zero-knowledge-proofs/comment-page-1/#comment-9062 Edmund in Tokyo Mon, 10 Nov 2008 07:15:00 +0000 http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/?p=307#comment-9062 One more very useful zero-knowledge proof along the same lines: How bad are the opponents' arguments? This is particularly useful in political situations where there's a group on the other side with plenty of resources to attack a case. If they've had to resort to misleading use of statistics and logic that doesn't stand up to a bit of thought, there's a good chance that the case they're attacking is sound. One more very useful zero-knowledge proof along the same lines: How bad are the opponents’ arguments? This is particularly useful in political situations where there’s a group on the other side with plenty of resources to attack a case. If they’ve had to resort to misleading use of statistics and logic that doesn’t stand up to a bit of thought, there’s a good chance that the case they’re attacking is sound.

]]>