Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

nsa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 49 posts

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#31

Post by kristopolous »

xnull2guest wrote: post #21

This was in 1955! There are comments here trying to contrast Nash's work to modern cryptography, as though that's somehow fair. Nash never had access to anything remotely like a personal computer and this is just after the age - and in fact still one - where physical and mechanical devices were being used to perform encryption. The better thing to do would be to compare (rather than contrast) his work. Look at this l…

In Economic Theory, the words "Nash Equilibrium" is said at least once an hour in every lecture hall. It's a pretty obvious focus (see here: http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/AAT-readings/Econ%20segment...). He's an Alan Turing in the field. Also see here (http://econtheory.org/) for some good sunday afternoon reading.

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#32

Post by xnull2guest »

kristopolous wrote: post #31
xnull2guest wrote: post #21

This was in 1955! There are comments here trying to contrast Nash's work to modern cryptography, as though that's somehow fair. Nash never had access to anything remotely like a personal computer and this is just after the age - and in fact still one - where physical and mechanical devices were being used to perform encryption. The better thing to do would be to compare (rather than contrast) his work. Look at this l…

In Economic Theory, the words "Nash Equilibrium" is said at least once an hour in every lecture hall. It's a pretty obvious focus (see here: http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/AAT-readings/Econ%20segment... ). He's an Alan Turing in the field. Also see here ( http://econtheory.org/ ) for some good sunday afternoon reading.

Of course. There is no ill will toward or deemphasis of Nash Equilibria. :)

Merely, it's a shame that MORE of Nash's contributions haven't been as popularly traded. This popular science emphasis at the opportunity cost of others leads to the impression that this is all Nash has contributed. That's all I was getting at. :)

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#33

Post by shiro »

niels_olson wrote: post #2

The diagram on page 14 (page 3 of the machine description) vaguely resembles a Markov model, which I could imagine would be useful for cryptanalysis, but I don't see how such a system would be reasonable for encryption or decryption if you have the keys. Am I misunderstanding the machine?

It's deterministic. Basically it's a state machine and the state transition table itself is the key, iiuc.

A few years ago I implemented it with software: http://blog.practical-scheme.net/gauche/20120715-nash-cipher...

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#34

Post by kristopolous »

xnull2guest wrote: post #32
kristopolous wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Economic Theory, the words "Nash Equilibrium" is said at least once an hour in every lecture hall. It's a pretty obvious focus (see here: http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/AAT-readings/Econ%20segment... ). He's an Alan Turing in the field. Also see here ( http://econtheory.org/ ) for some good sunday afternoon reading.

Of course. There is no ill will toward or deemphasis of Nash Equilibria. :) Merely, it's a shame that MORE of Nash's contributions haven't been as popularly traded. This popular science emphasis at the opportunity cost of others leads to the impression that this is all Nash has contributed. That's all I was getting at. :)

Alright. But honestly, if I got my namesake on some kind of fundamental theory, I'd be pretty ok with everything else being forgotten.

I can imagine the awkwardness of grad students presenting their work in a room where he was present ... "and so-and-so forms a nash equilibrium ... (silence, looking for approval from Johns face, sigh of relief from grad student when professor does not shake head in dismay)"

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#35

Post by kansface »

mpyne wrote: post #24
MichaelGG wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher risk from "insurgent" activity, which the US's actions have created without any help from leaks. Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit,…

> I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger. Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking…

|the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects,

I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or immoral activity of the US government (or any government for that matter) could be hidden under the same argument. We live in a democracy. It is impossible to change the government if we don't know what our government is doing in secret. Put succinctly, you advocate we shoot the messenger. Have you consider that it is the government who has placed the troops in harm's way by undertaking such outrageous, immoral, and illegal actions as opposed to the guy who merely told us about it.

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#38

Post by readme »

proksoup wrote: post #12
readme wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.

The closest thing I had to a friend serving, switched from a barely tolerable racist to a fellow who was proud he was protecting our oil interests by shooting hadjis. Difficult to understand how creating enemies abroad is protecting us here.

Did he actually serve? It says more about the friends you've kept than the quality of your average service member. The military is huge: there are criminals in it. We have our own justice system for that reason.

However I can assure you that is not the case man. I am in the Army and I have never been in a place with as many sane people as this...

Extreme beliefs are not even close to being the norm. Most people are just concerned about taking care of their families and are quite moderate politically.

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#39

Post by readme »

MichaelGG wrote: post #14
readme wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today's generation is strongly detached from the military, I think that is why. If everyone had a close family member or friend serving they would care more about the security of military operations. Like it or not we have enemies still and need to maintain this secrecy to protect our country.

My brother is in the US Army (and so was my cousin). I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger - AFAIK, he's at much higher risk from "insurgent" activity, which the US's actions have created without any help from leaks. Nor is using the word "serving" instead of "working" beneficial to how people think about it. It's a job, he enjoys it, he's fairly well compensated (good credit,…

I think Manning's leaks are a better example of a data breach that would have adversely affected troops in combat now. However any data on what damage they did is certainly not public, if it's even measurable.

As for being picky about how people think about what the military does, "serving" or "working", you've got to think about it again. It's definitely a service. It should be apparent from overwhelming consensus on the matter. However, if you want to make the argument that "oh hey, you volunteered for it" -- sure, keep in mind that if there weren't volunteers, we'd have conscription, and the US would be a significantly less free country than it is today. Freedom is choice. Volunteer soldiers means you choose, which means we have freedom.

I am sorry to hear that your cousin was chewed up and spit out. In this way the military is exactly like a corporation. Not everyone gets what they deserve, but I would like to think most people are compensated fairly.

Should probably disclose, I am in the Army.

Re: John Nash's letters to the NSA (1955) [pdf]

#40

Post by readme »

kansface wrote: post #35
mpyne wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe that Snowden-like reveals put him in any more specific danger That's true only in the same way that sending half-rations to your soldiers on the front line instead of full rations doesn't put them in "more specific" danger. Or in a civilian context, refusing to wear seat belts doesn't put people in any "more specific" danger, nor does smoking cigarettes. Yet we understand that statistically speaking…

|the things that Snowden leaks had disastrous real effects, I agree, this is undoubtedly true. I also firmly believe Snowden is a hero. Any highly illegal or immoral activity of the US government (or any government for that matter) could be hidden under the same argument. We live in a democracy. It is impossible to change the government if we don't know what our government is doing in secret. Put succinctly, you advo…

Have you considered the idea that Snowden is working for the Russians?

He is in Russia, you know. That's a bit... odd, yeah?

What better post-cold war tactic than to weaken the capabilities of an organization that spies on Russia than by decreasing its public approval.

Post reply on HN