4 ms·
My claim as that we don't need to cover math before we tackle cryptography, and my reasoning is that there is more than one way to approach a topic. Here's a d
by grog454 3y ago
My claim as that we don't need to cover math before we tackle cryptography, and my reasoning is that there is more than one way to approach a topic.
Here's a discussion of cryptography that has 0 occurrences of "ring" (for example): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography
- charlieyu1 3y agoThere are plenty of books about practical side of cryptography. This one goes much deeper than that. And how do you explain elliptic curves without using fields?
- Forgeties79 3y ago> My claim as that we don't need to cover math before we tackle cryptography I’ll just be blunt here. This is incredibly nitpicky to the point where I’m not even sure what you’re trying to accomplish or add here.
- a--n--b 3y agoThe page you link gives a surface-level description on the area and common techniques. Any remotely detailed explanations on specific topics demand mathematical foundations to be established, which is the approach most respectable cryptography _books_ adopt. If you allow me to substitute “ring” with “field,” the phrase immediately appears in technique-specific pages (see elliptic curve cryptography: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic-curve_cryptography) Undergraduate/graduate cryptography courses don’t teach from Wikipedia articles for a reason. It would be a disservice to those learning cryptography to discount the pivotal role of mathematics in the field.