[cryptography] non-decryptable encryption

Givonne Cirkin givonne at 37.com
Tue Jun 19 06:03:19 EDT 2012

of course this would fail at the first repeat.  briefly stated in the article in fact. the point made is, that until the first repeat you get a sequence of non-repeating digits.  and, we can generate such a sequence, a repeating decimal--by equation.  so, why not choose the right length repeating decimal for a message of a given length.

i don't understand why is it clear to some & they get it right away.  why do others not see it?  i thought i was clear to use the sequence up until the first repeat.

--- jamesd at echeque.com wrote:

From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd at echeque.com>
To: cryptography at randombit.net
Subject: Re: [cryptography] non-decryptable encryption
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:02:27 +1000

On 2012-06-18 8:56 PM, Givonne Cirkin wrote:
> Hi,
> My name is Givon Zirkind.  I am a computer scientist.  I developed a method of
> encryption that is not decryptable by method.
> You can read my paper at: http://bit.ly/Kov1DE
> My colleagues agree with me.  But, I have not been able to get pass peer review
> and publish this paper.  In my opinion, the refutations are ridiculous and just
> attacks -- clear misunderstandings of the methods.  They do not explain my
> methods and say why they do not work.
> I have a 2nd paper: http://bit.ly/LjrM61
> This paper also couldn't get published.  This too I was told doesn't follow the
> norm and is not non-decryptable.  Which I find odd, because it is merely the
> tweaking of an already known method of using prime numbers.

This fails at the first repeat, and has no relationship to the already 
known method of using prime numbers.
cryptography mailing list
cryptography at randombit.net

You @ 37.com - The world's easiest free Email address !

More information about the cryptography mailing list