* [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
@ 2025-01-13 17:47 tlaronde
2025-01-13 22:48 ` Daniel Maslowski via 9fans
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: tlaronde @ 2025-01-13 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop
on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that:
"This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about
cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security
applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability,
etc. are particularly welcome."
I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...).
When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also
about computability.
"Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by
generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There
are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap
bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb)
minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate.
So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation
about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the
following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists),
I would be very interested:
"Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer
intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But
how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if
one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically
solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?"
More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical,
digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open
to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment:
"analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus.
PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the
bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still
alive ;-)
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-Md3e2efd8adfe550fb9389f0c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
2025-01-13 17:47 [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security tlaronde
@ 2025-01-13 22:48 ` Daniel Maslowski via 9fans
2025-01-14 17:17 ` tlaronde
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Maslowski via 9fans @ 2025-01-13 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3039 bytes --]
I'd say, submit a paper and elaborate on this.
There are many approaches to cryptography besides primitives that count on
problems hard to calculcate, such a steganograpby (hiding messages in
images) and other forms of covert channels;
https://github.com/mindcrypt/covertchannels-steganography
Mind that analog computing is a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
And so is biological computing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing
You will find existing approaches of both applied to cryptography.
Thanks for the note on the copyright.
Cheers and good luck!
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 22:00 , <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
> Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop
> on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that:
>
> "This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about
> cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security
> applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability,
> etc. are particularly welcome."
>
> I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...).
>
> When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also
> about computability.
>
> "Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by
> generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There
> are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap
> bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb)
> minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate.
>
> So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation
> about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the
> following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists),
> I would be very interested:
>
> "Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer
> intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But
> how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if
> one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically
> solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?"
>
> More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical,
> digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open
> to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment:
> "analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus.
>
> PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the
> bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still
> alive ;-)
> --
> Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
> http://www.kergis.com/
> http://kertex.kergis.com/
> Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M4e4ec2f6033efa579835761c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5638 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
2025-01-13 22:48 ` Daniel Maslowski via 9fans
@ 2025-01-14 17:17 ` tlaronde
2025-01-14 18:56 ` Ron Minnich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: tlaronde @ 2025-01-14 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Maslowski via 9fans wrote:
> I'd say, submit a paper and elaborate on this.
>
> There are many approaches to cryptography besides primitives that count on
> problems hard to calculcate, such a steganograpby (hiding messages in
> images) and other forms of covert channels;
> https://github.com/mindcrypt/covertchannels-steganography
>
> Mind that analog computing is a thing:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
>
> And so is biological computing:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing
>
> You will find existing approaches of both applied to cryptography.
>
Well, I will very more probably propose a paper for WIP:
"kerTeX: from typographical system to typography of the system"
(how all the pieces exist to replace *roff---I don't mean the macro
for man page, but using the TeX engine instead of the roff one---and
to have a complete system from fonts, to layout and rendering because
one can even replace a PostScript interpreter because METAFONT is a
RIP...)
I'm interested in all the (previous last paragraph) things, around
computability, numerical vs analogical and so on, but I have not
something suffisantly original or even educated to say on the field.
I will prefer listening others.
But for the ones interested in cryptography, I came across an
historical remark that made me laugh and I can't resist sharing:
In letters written by Louvois (war minister, so to speak, under
Louis XIV), he once advised the commanding general to instruct the
generals under his own command to code and crypt their mails. And
he added, that it was not because he feared the enemy could surprise
our war plans if they managed to get the mails, but because he
didn't want the enemy to discover how subpar our generals were...
I like history. You discover that some things remain constant over the
time...
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 22:00 , <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
>
> > Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop
> > on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that:
> >
> > "This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about
> > cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security
> > applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability,
> > etc. are particularly welcome."
> >
> > I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...).
> >
> > When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also
> > about computability.
> >
> > "Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by
> > generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There
> > are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap
> > bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb)
> > minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate.
> >
> > So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation
> > about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the
> > following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists),
> > I would be very interested:
> >
> > "Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer
> > intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But
> > how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if
> > one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically
> > solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?"
> >
> > More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical,
> > digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open
> > to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment:
> > "analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus.
> >
> > PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the
> > bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still
> > alive ;-)
> > --
> > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
> > http://www.kergis.com/
> > http://kertex.kergis.com/
> > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M470338495e4025f602b0edd1
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
2025-01-14 17:17 ` tlaronde
@ 2025-01-14 18:56 ` Ron Minnich
2025-01-14 20:04 ` tlaronde
2025-01-14 21:28 ` tlaronde
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ron Minnich @ 2025-01-14 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
the kertex paper sounds very interesting. I would still like to have
pictex for it :-)
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:30 AM <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Maslowski via 9fans wrote:
> > I'd say, submit a paper and elaborate on this.
> >
> > There are many approaches to cryptography besides primitives that count on
> > problems hard to calculcate, such a steganograpby (hiding messages in
> > images) and other forms of covert channels;
> > https://github.com/mindcrypt/covertchannels-steganography
> >
> > Mind that analog computing is a thing:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
> >
> > And so is biological computing:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing
> >
> > You will find existing approaches of both applied to cryptography.
> >
>
> Well, I will very more probably propose a paper for WIP:
>
> "kerTeX: from typographical system to typography of the system"
>
> (how all the pieces exist to replace *roff---I don't mean the macro
> for man page, but using the TeX engine instead of the roff one---and
> to have a complete system from fonts, to layout and rendering because
> one can even replace a PostScript interpreter because METAFONT is a
> RIP...)
>
> I'm interested in all the (previous last paragraph) things, around
> computability, numerical vs analogical and so on, but I have not
> something suffisantly original or even educated to say on the field.
> I will prefer listening others.
>
> But for the ones interested in cryptography, I came across an
> historical remark that made me laugh and I can't resist sharing:
>
> In letters written by Louvois (war minister, so to speak, under
> Louis XIV), he once advised the commanding general to instruct the
> generals under his own command to code and crypt their mails. And
> he added, that it was not because he feared the enemy could surprise
> our war plans if they managed to get the mails, but because he
> didn't want the enemy to discover how subpar our generals were...
>
> I like history. You discover that some things remain constant over the
> time...
>
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 22:00 , <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop
> > > on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that:
> > >
> > > "This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about
> > > cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security
> > > applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability,
> > > etc. are particularly welcome."
> > >
> > > I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...).
> > >
> > > When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also
> > > about computability.
> > >
> > > "Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by
> > > generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There
> > > are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap
> > > bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb)
> > > minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate.
> > >
> > > So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation
> > > about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the
> > > following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists),
> > > I would be very interested:
> > >
> > > "Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer
> > > intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But
> > > how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if
> > > one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically
> > > solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?"
> > >
> > > More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical,
> > > digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open
> > > to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment:
> > > "analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus.
> > >
> > > PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the
> > > bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still
> > > alive ;-)
> > > --
> > > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
> > > http://www.kergis.com/
> > > http://kertex.kergis.com/
> > > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
>
> --
> Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
> http://www.kergis.com/
> http://kertex.kergis.com/
> Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M612c36f88696ec60630a6d0f
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
2025-01-14 18:56 ` Ron Minnich
@ 2025-01-14 20:04 ` tlaronde
2025-01-14 20:48 ` Edouard Klein
2025-01-14 21:28 ` tlaronde
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: tlaronde @ 2025-01-14 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:56:47AM -0800, Ron Minnich wrote:
> the kertex paper sounds very interesting. I would still like to have
> pictex for it :-)
I will add it. Having added beamer with its dependencies (pgf and the
like), pictex shouldn't be very difficult...
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:30?AM <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Maslowski via 9fans wrote:
> > > I'd say, submit a paper and elaborate on this.
> > >
> > > There are many approaches to cryptography besides primitives that count on
> > > problems hard to calculcate, such a steganograpby (hiding messages in
> > > images) and other forms of covert channels;
> > > https://github.com/mindcrypt/covertchannels-steganography
> > >
> > > Mind that analog computing is a thing:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
> > >
> > > And so is biological computing:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing
> > >
> > > You will find existing approaches of both applied to cryptography.
> > >
> >
> > Well, I will very more probably propose a paper for WIP:
> >
> > "kerTeX: from typographical system to typography of the system"
> >
> > (how all the pieces exist to replace *roff---I don't mean the macro
> > for man page, but using the TeX engine instead of the roff one---and
> > to have a complete system from fonts, to layout and rendering because
> > one can even replace a PostScript interpreter because METAFONT is a
> > RIP...)
> >
> > I'm interested in all the (previous last paragraph) things, around
> > computability, numerical vs analogical and so on, but I have not
> > something suffisantly original or even educated to say on the field.
> > I will prefer listening others.
> >
> > But for the ones interested in cryptography, I came across an
> > historical remark that made me laugh and I can't resist sharing:
> >
> > In letters written by Louvois (war minister, so to speak, under
> > Louis XIV), he once advised the commanding general to instruct the
> > generals under his own command to code and crypt their mails. And
> > he added, that it was not because he feared the enemy could surprise
> > our war plans if they managed to get the mails, but because he
> > didn't want the enemy to discover how subpar our generals were...
> >
> > I like history. You discover that some things remain constant over the
> > time...
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 22:00 , <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop
> > > > on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that:
> > > >
> > > > "This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about
> > > > cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security
> > > > applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability,
> > > > etc. are particularly welcome."
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...).
> > > >
> > > > When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also
> > > > about computability.
> > > >
> > > > "Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by
> > > > generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There
> > > > are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap
> > > > bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb)
> > > > minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate.
> > > >
> > > > So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation
> > > > about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the
> > > > following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists),
> > > > I would be very interested:
> > > >
> > > > "Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer
> > > > intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But
> > > > how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if
> > > > one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically
> > > > solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?"
> > > >
> > > > More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical,
> > > > digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open
> > > > to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment:
> > > > "analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus.
> > > >
> > > > PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the
> > > > bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still
> > > > alive ;-)
> > > > --
> > > > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
> > > > http://www.kergis.com/
> > > > http://kertex.kergis.com/
> > > > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
> >
> > --
> > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
> > http://www.kergis.com/
> > http://kertex.kergis.com/
> > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M82135fade3f8dffe2b74734f
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
2025-01-14 20:04 ` tlaronde
@ 2025-01-14 20:48 ` Edouard Klein
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Edouard Klein @ 2025-01-14 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
pgf must have been a beast ! Looking forward to reading your paper and
seeing your talk.
<tlaronde@kergis.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:56:47AM -0800, Ron Minnich wrote:
>> the kertex paper sounds very interesting. I would still like to have
>> pictex for it :-)
>
> I will add it. Having added beamer with its dependencies (pgf and the
> like), pictex shouldn't be very difficult...
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 9:30?AM <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Daniel Maslowski via 9fans wrote:
>> > > I'd say, submit a paper and elaborate on this.
>> > >
>> > > There are many approaches to cryptography besides primitives that count on
>> > > problems hard to calculcate, such a steganograpby (hiding messages in
>> > > images) and other forms of covert channels;
>> > > https://github.com/mindcrypt/covertchannels-steganography
>> > >
>> > > Mind that analog computing is a thing:
>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
>> > >
>> > > And so is biological computing:
>> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing
>> > >
>> > > You will find existing approaches of both applied to cryptography.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well, I will very more probably propose a paper for WIP:
>> >
>> > "kerTeX: from typographical system to typography of the system"
>> >
>> > (how all the pieces exist to replace *roff---I don't mean the macro
>> > for man page, but using the TeX engine instead of the roff one---and
>> > to have a complete system from fonts, to layout and rendering because
>> > one can even replace a PostScript interpreter because METAFONT is a
>> > RIP...)
>> >
>> > I'm interested in all the (previous last paragraph) things, around
>> > computability, numerical vs analogical and so on, but I have not
>> > something suffisantly original or even educated to say on the field.
>> > I will prefer listening others.
>> >
>> > But for the ones interested in cryptography, I came across an
>> > historical remark that made me laugh and I can't resist sharing:
>> >
>> > In letters written by Louvois (war minister, so to speak, under
>> > Louis XIV), he once advised the commanding general to instruct the
>> > generals under his own command to code and crypt their mails. And
>> > he added, that it was not because he feared the enemy could surprise
>> > our war plans if they managed to get the mails, but because he
>> > didn't want the enemy to discover how subpar our generals were...
>> >
>> > I like history. You discover that some things remain constant over the
>> > time...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025, 22:00 , <tlaronde@kergis.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Reading the presentation of the upcoming 11th International Workshop
>> > > > on Plan 9, on http://iwp9.org, I notice that:
>> > > >
>> > > > "This year, our host having a focus on computer security, papers about
>> > > > cryptography, authentication, fault tolerance, robustness, security
>> > > > applications, error detection and remediation, software reliability,
>> > > > etc. are particularly welcome."
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd like to add something (if people at the CNAM read this too...).
>> > > >
>> > > > When speaking about cryptography / security, one needs to speak also
>> > > > about computability.
>> > > >
>> > > > "Computing" or "calculating" is the way humans track nature, by
>> > > > generally beating around the bushes (indirect, lengthy access). There
>> > > > are equations that we can write, but that we can't solve while soap
>> > > > bubbles, for example, have no difficulty "calculating" (wrong verb)
>> > > > minimal surfaces that we don't know how to calculate.
>> > > >
>> > > > So if organizers or researchers in the field could add a presentation
>> > > > about the limit of numerical, digital, and propose an answer to the
>> > > > following question (perhaps by crossing swords with physicists),
>> > > > I would be very interested:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Cryptography for security relies on how long and how computer
>> > > > intensive is a digital computation to solve some equations. But
>> > > > how to be reassured about the digital security of something, if
>> > > > one can not prove that there are no "soap bubbles" able to analogically
>> > > > solve the equations that computers are unable to solve?"
>> > > >
>> > > > More broadly, the main question is: what are the limits of numerical,
>> > > > digital, computation? What is it obviously good at? What is it open
>> > > > to question good at? Does it rule out experiments?---experiment:
>> > > > "analogical computing" i.e. letting Nature doing the calculus.
>> > > >
>> > > > PS: could someone at the Plan9 Foundation update the copyright on the
>> > > > bottom of the pages? It is an easy way to show that things are still
>> > > > alive ;-)
>> > > > --
>> > > > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
>> > > > http://www.kergis.com/
>> > > > http://kertex.kergis.com/
>> > > > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
>> >
>> > --
>> > Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
>> > http://www.kergis.com/
>> > http://kertex.kergis.com/
>> > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M6c39c87f18249252a861e2f2
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security
2025-01-14 18:56 ` Ron Minnich
2025-01-14 20:04 ` tlaronde
@ 2025-01-14 21:28 ` tlaronde
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: tlaronde @ 2025-01-14 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 10:56:47AM -0800, Ron Minnich wrote:
> the kertex paper sounds very interesting. I would still like to have
> pictex for it :-)
>
Done (was trivial). You can whether pick-up it (it depends on nothing):
http://downloads.kergis.com/kertex/pkg/rcp/pictex@tex.sh
or update all the recipes (to get this one supplementary as well as
the updated latex recipe):
. which_kertex
$KERTEX_SHELL $KERTEX_LIBDIR/pkg/rcp/rcp@pkg.sh install
i didn't know about the package (I use John Hobby's MetaPost, that
comes with kerTeX too) but the syntax is quite similar (well, I
imagine things were all derived from the METAFONT syntax some should
not be that surprising).
--
Thierry Laronde <tlaronde +AT+ kergis +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.com/
http://kertex.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T42113639a6975e1d-M31173c94fae00b69dd1da8c5
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-01-14 23:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-01-13 17:47 [9fans] 11th IWP9: cryptography / security tlaronde
2025-01-13 22:48 ` Daniel Maslowski via 9fans
2025-01-14 17:17 ` tlaronde
2025-01-14 18:56 ` Ron Minnich
2025-01-14 20:04 ` tlaronde
2025-01-14 20:48 ` Edouard Klein
2025-01-14 21:28 ` tlaronde
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).