3 ms·
Is that actually induction? The randomness of one ciphertext bit in the induction step doesn't depend on its previous bits. You're really just applying your bas
by mimimi31 6y ago
Is that actually induction? The randomness of one ciphertext bit in the induction step doesn't depend on its previous bits. You're really just applying your base step multiple times.
- bombcar 6y agoAs far as I know that’s the idea of proof by induction: if a is true a+ 1 is true. A is true. Ergo it’s true for all possible numbers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ekimekim 6y agoThe inductive step here is in the conjecture: This algorithm is information-theoretic secure for a bitstring of length N The grantparent's argument is to first convince yourself that a) this is true for a bitstring of length 1, and b) if it's true for a bitstring of length N, then it's also true for a bitstring of length N+1 (or alternately formulated: if it's true for bitstrings of length M and N, you can concat them and it will be true for a bitstring of length M+N) The inductive step is then to apply this to show that because it's true for length 1, it's also true for length 2. And if it's true for length 2 then it's true for length 3. etc etc.