From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 11:19:00 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:   
      
   > The definition of ``probability'' (in the sense of how to interpret   
   > it) is sort of an open problem.   
      
   It’s a term which can be defined in more than one way. One obvious one is   
   as the relative frequency of different possible outcomes. I think there   
   are others.   
      
   > Lawrence D'Oliveiro  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:25:23 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> I get the feeling here that, by the same token, you could never have a   
   >>> provably secure cryptosystem because someone knows the private key?   
   >>   
   >> None of our cryptosystems are provably secure.   
   >   
   > One example of provably secure system is the one-time pad.   
      
   But it’s not. Where do you get the pad from? Proof of security of the   
   system relies on proof of the randomness of the pad. Which takes us back   
   to square one.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)