7 ms·

It highlights the absurdity of the whole thing, really. It seems hard for TI to argue that it's illegal to post a mathematical fact, doesn't it? Especially one

It highlights the absurdity of the whole thing, really. It seems hard for TI to argue that it's illegal to post a mathematical fact, doesn't it? Especially one that's so concise and straightforward.

zackattack 17y ago
You're neglecting the importance of context.
- eru 17y ago
  Yes. Otherwise I could publish something like [Source of MS Windows in binary] + 1 = [Source of MS Windows in binary + 1] However, I while I feel that breaking into systems should be punishable, I think that breaking cryptography should not be, as long as you inform the owner a six months before going public, and do not use the result for any personal gain.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    No cryptography was broken. Given a number, he found a number that divided it. It's a property of the universe, and you can't copyright properties of the universe. (That gravity is mine!!!) I think that breaking cryptography should not be, as long as you inform the owner a six months before going public, and do not use the result for any personal gain. It worries me that anyone would say something like this. I notice that 2 * 2 is 4, and I have to wait 6 months before telling anyone? Or what? What would TI do with this information? Why does TI have a right to tell me what I can do with chunks of plastic with TI's logo on it? (Remember, he's not copying their software; he wants to delete their software and use his own.) What legal framework would this fit into? Factoring numbers has nothing to do with copyright law, and a new law suppressing the publication of scientific research is a clear violation of the Constitution. Even if it is illegal, people can't be stopped; you can't police the entire Internet, and you can't stop people from installing software on their calculator. There is no way a government or corporation could monitor this. So you basically want to make a law that is a violation of hundereds of years of American principles, that is completely impossible to enforce, and that will drastically slow down scientific and mathematical progress. All so a piece of plastic that says "TI" on it can only run TI's buggy code? Wow. I ... just don't know what to say. You also use the word "owner". Who owns a number? Does TI own the number because they used it to sign some software? Can I "own" the number 4 because I say I do? If you are in a situation where you have four pieces of candy, and want to split them between you and your friend, should you have to inform me of your intentions and wait 6 months before giving yourself two pieces of candy and your friend the other two pieces? Why not? I'm the owner of the number 4, and anything you do with it needs my approval. The thing about "personal gain" is also insane. Everyone uses facts for personal gain. Big investment banks analyze market trends to make themselves billions of dollars. TI assumes you can't factor a number, and they use that to prevent you from cheating on math tests. All "personal gain" of the same variety. Should all enterprise be made illegal? Now that I think about it, I guess your post is sarcasm... but you had me worried there for a minute.
    - eru 17y ago
      Why should I worry about "a clear violation of the [US American] Constitution"? I never signed it, and do not even live under its jurisdiction. Why should I care about care about "hundereds of years of American principles"? Do you care about the Abstraction principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_principle_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_principle_%28law%29)? Neither do I. If you ask me in private, I think that copyright is no longer enforceable, and thus should be done away with. And philosophical, so called intellectual property restricts what I can do with my physical property. My grandparent post expressed a more guarded opinion. And telling somebody that you broke his cryptosystems (or his key) before going public with it, is at least good manners.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        TI, the EFF, the DMCA, and the person that broke the crypto are all in the US. So I assumed that we were discussing the issue with respect to the US.
        eru 17y ago
        You started arguing about properties of the universe.
        DougBTX 17y ago
        Properties of the universe presumably apply in the US, though I understand that appearances can be deceiving.
        eru 17y ago
        Sorry. I am just irritated by people who make it sound like it would be the other way round. (US laws are not in general properties of the universe, though I understand that appearances can be deceiving.) Anyway, enough arguing. Let me just say `Hitler' to close this thread by Godwin's law.
    - 17y ago
hy3lxs 17y ago
I'd have to say the absurdity of the whole thing is that calculators are allowed on math tests at all, thus fueling an entire market of crippleware calculators. (1) If you're trying to teach mathematical _concepts_ then make your problems come out to whole numbers that are easily done with pencil and paper. (2) If (1) was true then maybe we'd see some real innovation in the calculator space, especially if the single-purpose electronic device costing $100 from TI had to compete with iphone apps costing $1. Or Google Calculator. Or Wolfram Alpha. (3) I've anecdotally heard from my math-tutoring friends that there is a growing pandemic of high school kids in America that can't multiply single-digit numbers anymore. O_o
- icefox 17y ago
  My high school physics teacher did #1. The math was pretty simple if you knew the concept and the first week he showed us stuff like finding a square root on paper.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    "finding a square root on paper." That's painful!
    - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
      Actually it's pretty easy. It also follows from the basics of long division, which underpins how CRC algorithms work.
  - dhimes 17y ago
    I did exactly the same thing when teaching physics in college for many years. I made the numbers easy, but made people memorize formulas. No calculators or "cheat sheets" allowed, but you could leave an answer as pi/sqrt(2). I would tell the students: "The numbers should come out easy. If you get something weird, then one of us made a mistake!" This simple change made a huge improvement in comprehension in the class. It wasn't about "number jamming" any more, but about learning.
- 17y ago
alain94040 17y ago
This is where common sense comes into play. If you were in front of a judge, your argument that you are just posting a mathematical fact wouldn't stand for more than 10 seconds. Tell the truth: why did you choose those two numbers, specifically? Oh, because they allow you to unlock a TI calculator. So (the judge would say), you are publishing a secret key. You are not publishing random number products for the fun of seeing how many digits your calculator can handle. Taken to the extreme, this is the same argument as a hacker saying: I didn't break into the bank's computers, I just wrote a program, and the program is the one that broke into the bank. I was just typing on a keyboard, that's all I did. Intent.
- jrockway 17y ago
  It is an interesting fact, though, since there is a sequence of integers called "integers factored by computers". This integer is now a member of that set. The fact that a number this large was factored is interesting to the mathematical community. Should this information be suppressed because TI used this number to sign their OS? What if there was a table of all numbers and their factorizations, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 2 * 2, ... If you noticed TI was using a number in this list as their signing key, you could just look it up. Would that be illegal? Then why is it illegal to lazily generate this list as needed? What other properties of integers are illegal to discuss? (FWIW, I am almost certain that the DMCA does not apply to this case, anyway. TI is just sending letters Because They Can and because there is no penalty if they're wrong. I can send you a C&D telling you to take down the above comment. The appropriate response is to mock me, not to take the comment down.) Basically, TI should have used a bigger integer. Why rely on something as flaky as the legal system to protect your business model when you can use mathematical fact instead? (Answer: because using a bigger number would have added 1 cent to the cost of every calculator sold. Sending C&Ds is free.)
  - alain94040 17y ago
    You are still playing cute and don't understand how you'll be cut off by a judge (ie., common sense) in seconds. Sir, is that the only large number that you published? Are you saying that your interest in this number has nothing to do with its presence as a key in TI's calculators? How come a search of your house found all those dumps of TI firmware? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side, but this defense is called "playing stupid" and it is known not to work.
kd5bjo 17y ago
I imagine they might have some sort of trade secret claim, but I don't think that provides any protection from independent discovery. (IANAL)
lucifer 17y ago
" It seems hard for TI to argue that it's illegal to post a mathematical fact". Yes, absurd, but if you can patent genes (!) is it that much of a stretch to assert copyright on specific numbers? http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml#6 http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/pate...

It highlights the absurdity of the whole thing, really. It seems hard for TI to argue that it's illegal to post a mathematical fact, doesn't it? Especially one that's so concise and straightforward.

zackattack 17y ago

You're neglecting the importance of context.

eru 17y ago
Yes. Otherwise I could publish something like [Source of MS Windows in binary] + 1 = [Source of MS Windows in binary + 1] However, I while I feel that breaking into systems should be punishable, I think that breaking cryptography should not be, as long as you inform the owner a six months before going public, and do not use the result for any personal gain.
- jrockway 17y ago
  No cryptography was broken. Given a number, he found a number that divided it. It's a property of the universe, and you can't copyright properties of the universe. (That gravity is mine!!!) I think that breaking cryptography should not be, as long as you inform the owner a six months before going public, and do not use the result for any personal gain. It worries me that anyone would say something like this. I notice that 2 * 2 is 4, and I have to wait 6 months before telling anyone? Or what? What would TI do with this information? Why does TI have a right to tell me what I can do with chunks of plastic with TI's logo on it? (Remember, he's not copying their software; he wants to delete their software and use his own.) What legal framework would this fit into? Factoring numbers has nothing to do with copyright law, and a new law suppressing the publication of scientific research is a clear violation of the Constitution. Even if it is illegal, people can't be stopped; you can't police the entire Internet, and you can't stop people from installing software on their calculator. There is no way a government or corporation could monitor this. So you basically want to make a law that is a violation of hundereds of years of American principles, that is completely impossible to enforce, and that will drastically slow down scientific and mathematical progress. All so a piece of plastic that says "TI" on it can only run TI's buggy code? Wow. I ... just don't know what to say. You also use the word "owner". Who owns a number? Does TI own the number because they used it to sign some software? Can I "own" the number 4 because I say I do? If you are in a situation where you have four pieces of candy, and want to split them between you and your friend, should you have to inform me of your intentions and wait 6 months before giving yourself two pieces of candy and your friend the other two pieces? Why not? I'm the owner of the number 4, and anything you do with it needs my approval. The thing about "personal gain" is also insane. Everyone uses facts for personal gain. Big investment banks analyze market trends to make themselves billions of dollars. TI assumes you can't factor a number, and they use that to prevent you from cheating on math tests. All "personal gain" of the same variety. Should all enterprise be made illegal? Now that I think about it, I guess your post is sarcasm... but you had me worried there for a minute.
  - eru 17y ago
    Why should I worry about "a clear violation of the [US American] Constitution"? I never signed it, and do not even live under its jurisdiction. Why should I care about care about "hundereds of years of American principles"? Do you care about the Abstraction principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_principle_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_principle_%28law%29)? Neither do I. If you ask me in private, I think that copyright is no longer enforceable, and thus should be done away with. And philosophical, so called intellectual property restricts what I can do with my physical property. My grandparent post expressed a more guarded opinion. And telling somebody that you broke his cryptosystems (or his key) before going public with it, is at least good manners.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      TI, the EFF, the DMCA, and the person that broke the crypto are all in the US. So I assumed that we were discussing the issue with respect to the US.
      - eru 17y ago
        You started arguing about properties of the universe.
        DougBTX 17y ago
        Properties of the universe presumably apply in the US, though I understand that appearances can be deceiving.
        eru 17y ago
        Sorry. I am just irritated by people who make it sound like it would be the other way round. (US laws are not in general properties of the universe, though I understand that appearances can be deceiving.) Anyway, enough arguing. Let me just say `Hitler' to close this thread by Godwin's law.
  - 17y ago

hy3lxs 17y ago

I'd have to say the absurdity of the whole thing is that calculators are allowed on math tests at all, thus fueling an entire market of crippleware calculators. (1) If you're trying to teach mathematical _concepts_ then make your problems come out to whole numbers that are easily done with pencil and paper. (2) If (1) was true then maybe we'd see some real innovation in the calculator space, especially if the single-purpose electronic device costing $100 from TI had to compete with iphone apps costing $1. Or Google Calculator. Or Wolfram Alpha. (3) I've anecdotally heard from my math-tutoring friends that there is a growing pandemic of high school kids in America that can't multiply single-digit numbers anymore. O_o

icefox 17y ago
My high school physics teacher did #1. The math was pretty simple if you knew the concept and the first week he showed us stuff like finding a square root on paper.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  "finding a square root on paper." That's painful!
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    Actually it's pretty easy. It also follows from the basics of long division, which underpins how CRC algorithms work.
- dhimes 17y ago
  I did exactly the same thing when teaching physics in college for many years. I made the numbers easy, but made people memorize formulas. No calculators or "cheat sheets" allowed, but you could leave an answer as pi/sqrt(2). I would tell the students: "The numbers should come out easy. If you get something weird, then one of us made a mistake!" This simple change made a huge improvement in comprehension in the class. It wasn't about "number jamming" any more, but about learning.
17y ago

alain94040 17y ago

This is where common sense comes into play. If you were in front of a judge, your argument that you are just posting a mathematical fact wouldn't stand for more than 10 seconds. Tell the truth: why did you choose those two numbers, specifically? Oh, because they allow you to unlock a TI calculator. So (the judge would say), you are publishing a secret key. You are not publishing random number products for the fun of seeing how many digits your calculator can handle. Taken to the extreme, this is the same argument as a hacker saying: I didn't break into the bank's computers, I just wrote a program, and the program is the one that broke into the bank. I was just typing on a keyboard, that's all I did. Intent.

jrockway 17y ago
It is an interesting fact, though, since there is a sequence of integers called "integers factored by computers". This integer is now a member of that set. The fact that a number this large was factored is interesting to the mathematical community. Should this information be suppressed because TI used this number to sign their OS? What if there was a table of all numbers and their factorizations, 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 2 * 2, ... If you noticed TI was using a number in this list as their signing key, you could just look it up. Would that be illegal? Then why is it illegal to lazily generate this list as needed? What other properties of integers are illegal to discuss? (FWIW, I am almost certain that the DMCA does not apply to this case, anyway. TI is just sending letters Because They Can and because there is no penalty if they're wrong. I can send you a C&D telling you to take down the above comment. The appropriate response is to mock me, not to take the comment down.) Basically, TI should have used a bigger integer. Why rely on something as flaky as the legal system to protect your business model when you can use mathematical fact instead? (Answer: because using a bigger number would have added 1 cent to the cost of every calculator sold. Sending C&Ds is free.)
- alain94040 17y ago
  You are still playing cute and don't understand how you'll be cut off by a judge (ie., common sense) in seconds. Sir, is that the only large number that you published? Are you saying that your interest in this number has nothing to do with its presence as a key in TI's calculators? How come a search of your house found all those dumps of TI firmware? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side, but this defense is called "playing stupid" and it is known not to work.

kd5bjo 17y ago

I imagine they might have some sort of trade secret claim, but I don't think that provides any protection from independent discovery. (IANAL)

lucifer 17y ago

" It seems hard for TI to argue that it's illegal to post a mathematical fact". Yes, absurd, but if you can patent genes (!) is it that much of a stretch to assert copyright on specific numbers? http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml#6 http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/pate...