PIN fraud

Apr 15, 2004 196 Replies

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Agreed. [I was using integers/fractions to try to explain things more easily than with rationals/irrationals - I shouldn't have!]

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I think it comes down to something called (something like) "enumeration" :- If you can produce a method which puts all the numbers (in the particular group which you are considering) into one list - eg 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... for whole numbers, or the list which you kindly provided for fractions - then they are of the same kind, the type which can be "enumerated".

However, there is no such possible list for irrational numbers - and hence they are "another kind".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

;-)

It was this distinction between one kind of "infinity" and the bigger "infinity" that I was trying to alude to when comparing "keys" (which can be enumerated) with "algorithms" (which, I propose, cannot).

Without a hint of irony, "Rob" astounded uk.finance on 21 Apr 2004 by announcing:

That still requires some interim process before you can read it. Good try though.

That's almost begging the question. What I don't follow is what it is about irrationals that makes them impossible to enumerate in this way.

Try it, there isn't any way to make a list of (say) integers with a list of irrationals next to them with a one to one correspondence.

Not good enough. It may not seem like it to you, but I'm really a mere fallible mortal. Just because I might fail if I try, doesn't mean it can't be done, it might just mean I'm not up to the job.

I'd like to see a proof that it is impossible.

The strength of rot-13 can be doubled by applying the method twice :)

Yes, and in so far as there are bound to be an infinite - even if only countably infinite - number of ways of attempting a one-to-one it's barking up the wrong tree. There was a similar problem surrounding fermat's last theorem - you could have gone on forever failing to find an a,b,c such that a^n+b^nc^n but it wouldn't rule out the possibility that one fine day...

sorry that should have been "=" not ""

"Jim" wrote

Nice link, thanks.

It's amazing how you recollect the proof after reading just the first bit of it!

Edivue (view?)

Produced for editing magnetic tapes. I only ever came across 1 bottle and that was 30 years ago. Its was intended for editing a cough or similar out of an audio tape. Quite a messy performance.

Alternatively, with a professional tape deck with access to the tape head you could simply mark the start/end of the cough with a chinagraph pencil and chop it out with a (non - magnetic!) razor blade or scissors.

You could see it but I'm not sure it would possible for the resultant image to be decoded manually, it depends on the encoding method. FM, M^2 FM, NRZ, something else? Data bits mixed with clock bits! And that's if Edivue still did the business at the high density of information on a magstripe.

DG

Me too.

Isn't it just. :-(

Nearly 40 years ago for me and I wasn't really paying attention then - more enjoyable this time.

Absolutely. This story made me smile. Chip and PIN has been going for some time down under, but calling itself eftpos.

formatting link
If the link is split, try the one below.

formatting link

I wonder how they will solve the problem at service stations here. If a PIN pad lasts a couple of months before it gets smashed in New Zealand, the same pad wouldn't last a couple of days here.

"Timothy Lee" wrote

... or even, *any* number! ;-)

Eg: function1 is (10 x T) as T approaches infinity, function2 is (5 x T) as T approaches infinity. Now, function1/function2 is *always* exactly 2 (two) - hence the limit is also 2. Not one or infinity!

Now there's an idea - I'll take it in the other direction (infinitessimal) and call it calculus.

"Jim" wrote

I think that's been done before! [By two different famous people, long ago...]

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required