Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Find the perfect square closest to n(x), i just want the perfect square above or below no decimals. Can it be solved using geometry?
Replies:
7
Last Post:
Nov 1, 2013 8:53 PM




Re: Find the perfect square closest to n(x), i just want the perfect square above or below no decimals. Can it be solved using geometry?
Posted:
Nov 1, 2013 7:13 AM


On Friday, November 1, 2013 12:22:07 AM UTC4, graham...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, October 31, 2013 8:01:53 PM UTC7, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > Actually Ben i have a similar that may be easier for you to follow, > > > > > > > any square can be divided into 4 sub squares. And if we have a number > > > > > > > we can find the 10^x above it and 10^x1 below it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So 10^x is 1 now we can chose if we want 0 at real zero or zero at > > > > > > > square 10^x1 If we choose the later we close in faster. Now the area > > > > > > > between the lesser and bigger square or if we use zero, can be > > > > > > > described as a percentage ratio of the height. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I can't make head nor tail of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > The perfect square we find is subtracted from our number and now we > > > > > > > work same approach for this smaller square. This is repeated until the > > > > > > > full number is encoded to a series of squares + a small integer less > > > > > > > then 4. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this bit I've understood, but why? What's the point of doing this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like a SQRT(X) algorithm that goes to 10,000 digits. > > > > useful for 1 time cypher pads in this age of eavesdropping! > > > > > > > > In Javascript, so no more than 100,000 maths operations.. > > > > > > Binary is fine too! > > > > > > I understand Ben's point... if you are using repeated approximations > > then Newtons method is very fast. > > > > > > > > Herc > >  > > www.PrologDatabase.com
How would *any* mathematical operation be useful in the creation of 1time pads? Running a random bitpattern through a function is at best harmless and at worst will introduce statistical correlations between the bits which could only hurt security. On the other hand  if the input to the function has not been generated by a genuinely random process then it isn't a 1time pad. It is true that the output of a pseudorandom number generator *might* be improved (from the point of view of passing various statistical tests for randomness) by running it through a function, but that has nothing to do with 1time pads.



