abuse@spamalicious.com wrote:

> The principle of bivalence merely states that every proposition
> is either true or false.  "Tertium non datur" is the law of the
> excluded middle, which is not the same.
> Furthermore, neither one says anything about half
> the population falling on one side or the other; you're either making
> that up or confusing it with something else.
> 
> I refer you to:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalent
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

You are wrong, tertium non datur is the law of the exclusion of the
THIRD possibility (it stems from Latin and means "the third is not
given"), meaning that any statement can only be either true or false.
Some of us have learned mathematics at school, you should try that
too, eventhough Wikipedia can be informative, I'm sure. :->

> > You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
> 
> Hey, you're the one who argued that it's 2^384 to break.  Even
> PHK's own paper on GBDE puts the effort to break it at 2^129. 
> Who is it that hasn't read the paper?

Roland argued against 2^384, I argued against Roland's underestimate
of 2^158, not for 2^384 specifically. Please learn to pay attention.

> > You're right, IIRC PKZIP v1.10 had DES encryption back in 1990,
> > someone should have told PHK! :-P Please, get a clue, read PHK's
> > papers.
> 
> And yet more nonsense.  PKZIP isn't even a disk encryption
> system.  And you know very well that CGD and Loop-AES both predate
> GBDE.  Claiming that there is "nothing like it" is objectively false.
> 
> Now, if you'd care to stop making ad hominem attacks, perhaps
> there can be some useful discussion.

Perfer et obdura, dolor hic tibi proderit olim. :-)) Go check if
that is in Wikipedia. :-)) You can email me for the translation
if you cannot find it online. :->

ALeine
___________________________________________________________________
WebMail FREE http://mail.austrosearch.net