[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov>*Subject*: Re: on the nature of trust*From*: Ed Gerck <egerck@laser.cps.softex.br>*Date*: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 00:46:20 -0200 (EDT)*Cc*: spki@c2.net*In-Reply-To*: <3.0.3.32.19980212181402.0094f5f0@poptop.llnl.gov>*Sender*: owner-spki@c2.net

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Tony Bartoletti wrote: -> Ed, -> -> I do believe that your definition of Trust (in the sense analogous to -> Information Theory) is the most elegant and useful one, to repeat: -> -> > Trust: "Trust is that which is essential to a communication channel but -> > which cannot be transferred from a source to a destination using -> > that channel" -> -> (Author! Author!) Thank you. -> -> As I have said earlier, it seems vaguely derivative of Kurt Godel's -> foundation-shattering result, which I paraphrase poorly here: -> -> "In any system of mathematics sufficiently expressive, one can produce -> statements that are simultaneously True, and yet cannot be Proven to -> be True within the given system." -> I am familiar with that but here we have a different beast. ;-) Quite common as I will show. (this exposition may better explain the def's machinery) First, the definition of Trust I provided is NOT a statement to be proved because it is NOT a derivation. It starts a new branch in Information Theory, in which we go through the looking glass, so to say. Second, you can't expect to prove first principles -- they are. If they are coherent or not, if they adequately mingle in with other parts of other theories that are used, if they provide useful results, if they correctly reproduce known results, etc., all this constitutes the acid test of the definition (like a photoplate that is revealed by acid attack) in that context. It may be that you need to revisit/revise the whole theory in order to allow the new definition to mingle in or maybe you can just make second-order adjustments. Third, this is what I call a "shadow definition". It is a simple and effective tool, often used. A "shadow definition" is a def that qualifies the subject by negating a property. For example, a neutron "is an atomic particle that has no charge", or, a prime "is a number that has no divisors save itself and the unit", or zero "is a number that cannot be divided by itself", etc. Of course, some concepts (like zero) accept shadow and normal defs. So, the trust def is quite an ordinary type, as ordinary as the def of a prime number, regarding its wording logic. [snip] -> So the question remains: If I must Trust the given channel by some out- -> of-band means, wherein will this Trust originate? Good question but needs a slightly more precise wording (ie, using the terminology as defined, as it will be clear below). Maybe some answers are in my posting to Carl. First, I would change it to: Q1: If I must Trust the Information transfered from source A to destination B, wherein will this Trust originate? A1: From any source, including A, that can be chosen at will by B, in real-time (see def in cie.htm) and with any desired redundancy (see def in cie.htm). Q2: How will it be transfered? A2: By using at least one channel which is NOT used to transfer the Information that has to be Trusted. Cheers, Ed ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck@novaware.cps.softex.br http://novaware.cps.softex.br --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---

**Re: on the nature of trust***From*: Tony Bartoletti <azb@llnl.gov>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: on the nature of trust** - Next by Date:
**Re: The role of trust in certification, was Augustine (fwd)** - Prev by thread:
**Re: on the nature of trust** - Next by thread:
**Re: on the nature of trust** - Index(es):