Originally Posted by
wym123
....math is not defined according to reality but on some virtual "intellectual" space and in this space, the idea of infinite can be precisely defined and hence, exists.
Correct, although in depth psychology--and in socionics--this virtual intellectual space is called the unconscious.
Many problems in mathematics may have solutions that will never be found. This is because the unconscious may hide information from consciousness that clearly deliniates a point, because perceiving that point may be contrary to existence. (for example, reaching lightspeed c) Mathematicians need to be aware of this. Rather than trying to prove something that seems impossible, perhaps it would be better to disprove it. I am sure that mathematicians do that, but consider this: if someone you distrusted published a proof you disagreed with, how likely would you be to disagree? And even if you agreed, would you enjoy agreeing with it, and wouldn't you eagerly accept the first opportunity to attempt contradicting it?
About your example:
Mathematics: Let M be the set of plain texts, K be the set of keys, C be the set of cipher texts. Let a probability distribution be induced on M, and C. An encryption, Enc is perfectly secure if for all m in M, Pr[Enc_k(m) = c] = Pr[m].
Precise English formalism: given an encryption scheme, and a key space, plain text space, and cipher text space associated with the scheme, where probability distributions are defined for the plain text space and cipher text space, the probability, given a cipher text, the probability of choosing the correct message is no different from not knowing the cipher text in the first place.
Now formally we can ascribe elements of the psyche to your formula. Let the plain texts be knowledge, let the keys be the concrete art revelations required for new understanding, and let the ciphers be the elements of reality whose relations to each other are not previously understood.
How to put this into a computational formula?
In Javascript (my preferred language whenever possible),
Code:
ExpectedText = "[whatever]";
Key = 0;
while (!(Key)) {
TextIndex++;
ChipherIndex++;
CipherFunction = new Function (Cipher[CipherIndex]);
CipheredText = CipherFunction(Plaintext[TestIndex]);
Success = MatchElements(CipheredText, ExpectedText);
// Clear enough what it means. Returns the frequency of ExpectedText in CipheredText.
if (Success > CertitudeThreshold) {
Key = 1;
}
}
}
Is that what you were looking for? That's the limit to which the problem can be solved. One must know what to expect from the correct cipher before it can be judged as such.
That is the fundamental logic underlying your idea, however.
Reply With Quote
.
Try the first page and work down from there. 
-winning at all costs but rather because you see in everyting some sort of imperfection, could be due to intuition - feeling the weakest link in theory/statement. And you would like things to be clear and exact. How comfortable you feel with Gamma quadra?
but he does it through irrational base function of intuition 
which is tuned into the direction the thought may develop. Idf you take into account the third function of INTP which is 
which serves 