When I wrote my last memo I didn’t know that it was part of a wider maelstrom.
It’s clear that the Truisms of all American (cum British) lying are abound; with definitional lying at the fore.
In my Era, pre 911, via 2 layers of Anglo-American (unofficially well coordinated) small contractors, each agency would have the other (small contractor) do metadata collection (on each other’s citizens)
This all went away post 911, when each agency could do it officially (whereas before metadata was legally grey)
What was retained, post 911, was the apparatus of grey ness.
Beware trump, with his CIA and NSA versions of his preatorian guards. Now beholden to the new emporer, the old guard may be lynched; Such is the nature of raw naked (super secret) power.
“based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.”
As I recall when deniability is required, that’s when NSA induced gchq to do the spying on Americans (contact with foreign targets, of course)
Trump must be up by now on how and what NSA do!?
He won’t be as adept as Obama. But give him time. The absolute power of secret spying will either tame his dictatorial impulses or get him rapidly impeached.
Finally I understand the meaning of the mean being 1.
Id figured a while ago that he was interested in the shuffle around 1.
But now we get that in eigenvector explanation (which is better than the shuffle!)
any distribution is the sum of 1/n of the 1 eigenvector + a superposition of weighted others.
One d reps of groups , per Turing almost exactly
This is the second paper with modern presentation of two of the argumentation devices Turing used in on permutations. First we finally understand the why of wanting to establish that the math power of d generator is always positive 1. And second, we see why his lemma a is concerned with a power of four.
See paper for other examples of both argumentation devices.
if we reanalyze turings final argument can we say that he is testing for a given representation being one that is a group, given a lie algebra and its generator?
he really says that g has subgroup h which inturn has a centralizer subgroup h1
see also k:
Generalization to Borel sets
This distribution can be generalized to more complicated sets than intervals. If S is a Borel set of positive, finite measure, the uniform probability distribution on S can be specified by defining the pdf to be zero outside S and constantly equal to 1/K on S, where K is the Lebesgue measure of S.
i like this writer. she doesnt lose the point with endless symbols.
this is the sense of turing- the point at which the measure of diffusion (of colinear differentials in crypto) has become chaotic
recall turing used a doubly transitive operator to mix the plaintext differentials within the output space
Center and zero
More great Turing
View as CPU design, instruction set for rational – i.e. Probability densities seen in cryptanalysis
View in terms of early comp sci, searching for a computable group (suited to improbability calculus)
Looking at turnings overall argument form, I now see that he does address pure states. When he talks about those group element with particular discriminators,these are the eigenkets for his rotational (pre-measurement) operator.
His system is still constrained to be looking at lambda2 (max difference from constants etc).
Interesting also that the inner product norm is to him just a (easy sum of squares) measure of the squiggle path one takes, with respect to another vector (including his eigenket vectors, k).
Back to the future
Gives a nice notion of distance for measurable probability densities such as those found in Markova ciphers resisting 1943 era differential cryptanalysis
The Turing era teaching on doubly transitive and a sequence of h1….hi, playing the role of n des rounds making a markov cipher
Doubly transitive like Turing P22
Now we see why Turing left unstated the relationship to differential cryptanalysis.
We must defend and protect federal networks and data,” Trump said during a meeting on cybersecurity. “We operate these networks on behalf of the American people and they are very important and very sacred.” The executive order had been scheduled for signing after the meeting. It was unclear when it would be signed.
Because NSA objected and , just as with the dhs attempt to usurp NSA role earlier, was able to state why things must remain with NSA. ;and that’s not even discounting the alternatives lack of deployed capability).
The emotional reason doesn’t take a lot of understanding (and even trump – t for torture and p for pussy, recall – understands that without control over the metadata, you cannot spy. And that means spying as much on congress as vlad the impaler.
At this point NSA will be pitching trump on how they validate and protect him (oh king, imperatur) as the preatorians. At his level of paranoia it will be doubly effective.
Let C be a conjugacy class of the symmetric group Sn . Recall that C consists of all of the permutations of a given cycle type. Hence we may define the support of C, denoted by supp(C), to be the number of nonfixed digits under the action of a permutation in C. If C has “large” support, then each element of C“moves” a lot of letters. If the permutations in C are all even, then we say that C is an even conjugacy class. If the permutations in C are all odd, we say that C is an odd conjugacy class. For n≥5, the subgroup generated by C, denoted by C, is Sn if C is odd, and An if C is even.
think of each tunny run as a particular biased quantum coin space.