<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Theorem 2.6 from the lecture</title>
		<link>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147/theorem-2-6-from-the-lecture</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Theorem 2.6 from the lecture&quot;</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 07:38:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147#post-4414037</guid>
				<title>Re: Theorem 2.6 from the lecture</title>
				<link>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147/theorem-2-6-from-the-lecture#post-4414037</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sun, 03 Nov 2019 18:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>nbitansky</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>1746223</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Decryption only requires the secret key and not the randomness that was used to encrypt (otherwise, thinking about randomized encryption is meaningless, think why&#8230;).</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147#post-4414012</guid>
				<title>Re: Theorem 2.6 from the lecture</title>
				<link>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147/theorem-2-6-from-the-lecture#post-4414012</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sun, 03 Nov 2019 18:08:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Hila Chefer </wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>5837246</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Thanks.<br /> Also, I think that this proof does not hold if E is not deterministic since in that case guessing the key isn't enough (since the adversary does not know the random vector that was selected), right?<br /> If so, is there a proof for the non-deterministic case that we can read? If the same proof still holds, could you explain why?</p> <p>Thanks again.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147#post-4412155</guid>
				<title>Re: Theorem 2.6 from the lecture</title>
				<link>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147/theorem-2-6-from-the-lecture#post-4412155</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2019 19:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>nbitansky</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>1746223</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Right, it follows quite directly from the third definition.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147#post-4411729</guid>
				<title>Theorem 2.6 from the lecture</title>
				<link>http://tau-foc-f19.wikidot.com/forum/t-12770147/theorem-2-6-from-the-lecture#post-4411729</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Hila Chefer </wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>5837246</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Hi,</p> <p>In theorem 2.6 we proved that any perfect cipher holds: n&gt;=l, but in the proof we have not clarified which definition is contradicted if n&lt;l.<br /> Seems pretty intuitive to me that it isn't a perfect cipher since the cipher &quot;adds knowledge&quot; in the form of a higher probability to guess the message using E.<br /> Is this a good enough explanation or do we always have to show a contradiction to one of the definitions?<br /> If so, it seems to me that the third definition may be the most convenient one to show the contradiction since if M is the uniform distribution, then I think that the inequality that we've shown is enough to contradict the definition (2<sup>-l</sup> != 2<sup>-n</sup>), is this a good explanation?</p> <p>Thanks!</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>