4 ms·

I agree with your general sentiment too. The only reason I took issue was because of the adjective "general". I still think the rule is "generally" true, but

I agree with your general sentiment too. The only reason I took issue was because of the adjective "general". I still think the rule is "generally" true, but people shouldn't be dogmatic about it when they need to find a special solution for a special problem. The reality is most problems that require cryptography are not that special and there really is no good reason to roll your own crypto. I think in this particular case this is even more true because people's real money is on the line.

madez 9y ago
> The only reason I took issue was because of the adjective "general". Now, that is an interesting and valuable insight for me. I regularly teach mathematics where I need to insist on formal nitpicks when they change the result of the reasoning, and I'm used to people not understanding formal nitpicks right away, so I'm used to patiently insist and use analogies, different angles, etc. However, I don't teach in english. When I say a rule is true in general, then that means for me that rule is always true no matter what. If the word "general" in this context is understood differently, then that explains things.
- cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
  Not sure if you're accusing me of having an incorrect understanding of the word "general" or not, but when someone says "X is simply wrong in general", most people understand it as "Generally, X is simply wrong". Even using your claim of: > When I say a rule is true in general, then that means for me that rule is always true no matter what and interpreting the exact sentence you posted above: > The "don't roll your own crypto" is simply wrong in general I can't see how you can interpret it anything other than: > The "don't roll your own crypto" is simply wrong no matter what. If you wanted to say what you're claiming to have said, you should have said "'The don't roll your own crypto' is not always correct". Since you said you teach math, I'm sure you understand inverse/converse/contrapositive relations.
  - madez 9y ago
    I'm not accusing you of anything. When I wrote > The "don't roll your own crypto" is simply wrong in general then I meant the negation of > The "don't roll your own crypto" is true in general I should have used the much clearer > The "don't roll your own crypto" is not always correct I differentiate between "A is not true" and "not(A) is true". The latter I use when the negation of A is a tautology, the former I use when A may or may not be true. In the case of "A is wrong in general" this led to "A is wrong in general" -> "A is not true in general" -> "not(A is true in general)" -> "not(A is true in all cases)" -> "There are cases where not(A) is true".

madez 9y ago

> The only reason I took issue was because of the adjective "general". Now, that is an interesting and valuable insight for me. I regularly teach mathematics where I need to insist on formal nitpicks when they change the result of the reasoning, and I'm used to people not understanding formal nitpicks right away, so I'm used to patiently insist and use analogies, different angles, etc. However, I don't teach in english. When I say a rule is true in general, then that means for me that rule is always true no matter what. If the word "general" in this context is understood differently, then that explains things.

cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
Not sure if you're accusing me of having an incorrect understanding of the word "general" or not, but when someone says "X is simply wrong in general", most people understand it as "Generally, X is simply wrong". Even using your claim of: > When I say a rule is true in general, then that means for me that rule is always true no matter what and interpreting the exact sentence you posted above: > The "don't roll your own crypto" is simply wrong in general I can't see how you can interpret it anything other than: > The "don't roll your own crypto" is simply wrong no matter what. If you wanted to say what you're claiming to have said, you should have said "'The don't roll your own crypto' is not always correct". Since you said you teach math, I'm sure you understand inverse/converse/contrapositive relations.
- madez 9y ago
  I'm not accusing you of anything. When I wrote > The "don't roll your own crypto" is simply wrong in general then I meant the negation of > The "don't roll your own crypto" is true in general I should have used the much clearer > The "don't roll your own crypto" is not always correct I differentiate between "A is not true" and "not(A) is true". The latter I use when the negation of A is a tautology, the former I use when A may or may not be true. In the case of "A is wrong in general" this led to "A is wrong in general" -> "A is not true in general" -> "not(A is true in general)" -> "not(A is true in all cases)" -> "There are cases where not(A) is true".