Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The second constructor, s≤s, corresponds to an inference rule, allowing to turn a proof of n ≤ m into a proof of suc n ≤ suc m. [9] So the value s≤s {zero} {suc zero} (z≤n {suc zero}) is a proof that one (the successor of zero), is less than or equal to two (the successor of one).
This is called a "zero-knowledge proof of knowledge". However, a password is typically too small or insufficiently random to be used in many schemes for zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge. A zero-knowledge password proof is a special kind of zero-knowledge proof of knowledge that addresses the limited size of passwords. [citation needed]
Here, "quickly" means an algorithm that solves the task and runs in polynomial time (as opposed to, say, exponential time) exists, meaning the task completion time is bounded above by a polynomial function on the size of the input to the algorithm. The general class of questions that some algorithm can answer in polynomial time is "P" or "class ...
In cryptography, a proof of knowledge is an interactive proof in which the prover succeeds in 'convincing' a verifier that the prover knows something. What it means for a machine to 'know something' is defined in terms of computation. A machine 'knows something', if this something can be computed, given the machine as an input.
It states that if a polynomial function from an n-dimensional space to itself has Jacobian determinant which is a non-zero constant, then the function has a polynomial inverse. It was first conjectured in 1939 by Ott-Heinrich Keller , [ 1 ] and widely publicized by Shreeram Abhyankar , as an example of a difficult question in algebraic geometry ...
Conversely, given a solution to the SubsetSumZero instance, it must contain the −T (since all integers in S are positive), so to get a sum of zero, it must also contain a subset of S with a sum of +T, which is a solution of the SubsetSumPositive instance. The input integers are positive, and T = sum(S)/2.
[b] The f value of that goal is then also the cost of the shortest path, since h at the goal is zero in an admissible heuristic. The algorithm described so far only gives the length of the shortest path. To find the actual sequence of steps, the algorithm can be easily revised so that each node on the path keeps track of its predecessor.
The probabilistic proof protocol in this case coincidentally turns out to also be a zero-knowledge proof protocol, but that is not the motivation for turning the proof probabilistic. The motivation in this case is that Peggy doesn't have a brick to prop open the door with (i.e., our attempt at constructing a non-probabilistic proof protocol was ...