home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.crypt:4875 sci.math:15069 comp.theory:2440
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!dcs.ed.ac.uk!pdc
- From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt,sci.math,comp.theory
- Subject: Re: Cryptography and P=NP
- Message-ID: <Bxtowv.246@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 16 Nov 92 19:02:55 GMT
- References: <1992Nov15.110945.19939@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <PHR.92Nov15203840@napa.telebit.com> <1992Nov16.152501.22172@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
- Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
- Organization: Do they make a washing powder called Caliban Automatic?
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <1992Nov16.152501.22172@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
- >In article <PHR.92Nov15203840@napa.telebit.com> phr@telebit.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
- >>It is true that if P=NP then all cryptography everywhere (not just RSA)
- >>is dead; but at this point I wouldn't take Swart's claims seriously
- >>without seeing some consensus among complexity efforts that unlike
- >>his previous attempts, his latest effort is free of bugs.
- >
- >To rephrase Herman Rubin's point: an O(n^1000) algorithm for an NP-hard
- >problem will show P=NP without compromising cryptography in the
- >slightest.
-
- If such an algorithm was found, I wouldn't trust RSA further than I
- could throw it without a proof that factoring is something on this
- order of hardness, and such a proof doesn't exist at the moment. If
- it's O(n^1000) today, then people will be bringing Fibonacci heaps and
- hash tables and all sorts of odd things to bear on it until it's beaten
- down to something smaller; and "something smaller" might be O(n^3).
- __ ____
- \/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \ /
- /\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul" \/
-