🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 Jan 98 02:30:35 GMT, roger@police.tas.gov.au (Roger
Fleming) wrote:
.
>>
>>! As an analogy, if I code some very complicated message via a coding
>>! scheme which *you* cannot decipher, then that information, that
>>! message is *destroyed* so far as you are concerned, right now as of
>>! this moment. If however, science should advance in the science of
>>! cryptology and then *be able* to decode my coded message, then that
>>! information which you once thought lost is now "readable" to you. 
>>
>>That's a false analogy.  The message is not encoded with a hard-to-break
>>cipher, it's erased by RANDOM damage, in other words, noise.  Once the
>>SNR goes negative, sorry, the message can't be recovered.  A cipher 
>>retains all information and does not introduce noise.
>
>Most do. A couple of "special ones" do lose information and introduce noise. 
>And it is mathematically provable that these latter can never be broken, 
>regardless of any technological advancement.
>By the way, the sci.crypt link is pretty weak; I'v removed it from the 
>newsgroups line.

Could you please elaborate? To what degree is information lost?
Is the message burned up in a fire?

Randy Smith
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryofan1.html
****************************************************