Comments on: T-functions Testbed http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/ Think it easy Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:45:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Ilya http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13981 Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:16:46 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13981 Rotation on its own is always a linear transformation. The abovementioned overflow bits involvement just makes it a rotation plus an extra operation. Rotation on its own is always a linear transformation. The abovementioned overflow bits involvement just makes it a rotation plus an extra operation.

]]> by: helin http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13951 Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:54:17 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13951 thanks! usually,right rotation(left rotation.etc) is linear transform. but it seems not from your explanation? thanks!

usually,right rotation(left rotation.etc) is linear transform.

but it seems not from your explanation?

]]> by: Ilya http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13915 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:10:00 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13915 Helin, your questions are broken because of html tags sanitation. I cannot see them to reply. Please do not use plain > and < as is while posting. Helin, your questions are broken because of html tags sanitation. I cannot see them to reply. Please do not use plain > and < as is while posting.

]]> by: helin http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13914 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:12:54 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13914 rotation " rotation “

]]> by: helin http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13852 Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:19:15 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13852 another question: the rotation operation " another question:

the rotation operation “

]]> by: helin http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13825 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:54:53 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13825 when we say rotation (x when we say rotation (x

]]> by: helin http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13824 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:50:12 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13824 thanks for your explanation. what you mean is y = [a*(~x)<span style="color:darkred"><<</span>b]|[a*(~x)<span style="color:darkred">>>(2<sup>n</sup>-b)] Ilya wrote: Yes indeed </span> thanks for your explanation.

what you mean is y = [a*(~x)<<b]|[a*(~x)>>(2n-b)]

Ilya wrote: Yes indeed

]]> by: Ilya http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13823 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:53:43 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13823 Yep, a misunderstanding :) But note the results of <code>x=6*neg(x); x=(x<<7)|(x>>1); x %= 256;</code> :) A function in the testbed is mod 2<sup>8</sup> by default. Yep, a misunderstanding :)

But note the results of
x=6*neg(x); x=(x<<7)|(x>>1); x %= 256;
:)

A function in the testbed is mod 28 by default.

]]> by: helin http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13822 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:19:58 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13822 we are both right under the assumption of ourown. i am misleaded by "All functions are mod 2^n" in the original paper, and the explanation above is "without mod operation". this leads to our discussion. maybe i misunderstood you :) we are both right under the assumption of ourown.

i am misleaded by “All functions are mod 2^n” in the original paper, and the explanation above is “without mod operation”. this leads to our discussion.

maybe i misunderstood you :)

]]> by: Ilya http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13821 Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:40:02 +0000 http://www.literatecode.com/2007/10/23/tftestbed/#comment-13821 All referenced functions are single cycle and invertible. There is no any contradiction. And your claim about a(~x)<<<b is invertible iif an odd a is regardlessly wrong. All referenced functions are single cycle and invertible. There is no any contradiction. And your claim about a(~x)<<<b is invertible iif an odd a is regardlessly wrong.

]]>