To be pedantic, number factoring isn't NP-complete
Yes it is. In 2002 the
AKS primality test was discoverd proving that testing for primality is P. As a result factorization is NP because we can check if a given factorization is correct in polynomial time.
I believe you are right about this. This would explain why hacks work. They basically change something clientside and then convince the server to accept the change. Clearly not all communications get checked serverside.
This study doesn't show OSS is a risk at all. They forgot to compare it with proprietary software. Without such a comparison you can't tell wether OSS is worse. For all I know 10 out of 11 proprietary software packages would have issues too.
You've made a basic mistake. You assume that each of the options in your table are equally likely which they are not.
In your notation CGG 1 2 and CGG 1 3 both have
a chance of occurring of 1/18. A factor 1/3 for the car to be behind door 1, a factor 1/3 for you choosing door 1 and a factor 1/2 for Monty choosing either 2 or 3.
On the other hand CGG 2 3 and CGG 3 2
have a chance of occurring of 1/9. A factor 1/3 for the car being behind door 1 and a factor 1/3 for you choosing door 1. Monty doesn't have a choice any more.
Adding up the wins and losses with the proper weights will give you a 2/3 win ratio rather then a 1/2 one.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to have a complete factorization. Just multiplying the factors isn't enough, they need to be prime.
To be pedantic, number factoring isn't NP-complete
Yes it is. In 2002 the AKS primality test was discoverd proving that testing for primality is P. As a result factorization is NP because we can check if a given factorization is correct in polynomial time.
I believe you are right about this. This would explain why hacks work. They basically change something clientside and then convince the server to accept the change. Clearly not all communications get checked serverside.
This study doesn't show OSS is a risk at all. They forgot to compare it with proprietary software. Without such a comparison you can't tell wether OSS is worse. For all I know 10 out of 11 proprietary software packages would have issues too.
If he were black?
The same would have happened of course. He'd still have a rich and influential father.
You've made a basic mistake. You assume that each of the options in your table are equally likely which they are not.
In your notation CGG 1 2 and CGG 1 3 both have a chance of occurring of 1/18. A factor 1/3 for the car to be behind door 1, a factor 1/3 for you choosing door 1 and a factor 1/2 for Monty choosing either 2 or 3.
On the other hand CGG 2 3 and CGG 3 2 have a chance of occurring of 1/9. A factor 1/3 for the car being behind door 1 and a factor 1/3 for you choosing door 1. Monty doesn't have a choice any more.
Adding up the wins and losses with the proper weights will give you a 2/3 win ratio rather then a 1/2 one.