What would it take for you to leave Mormonism?

[_gramps]

Sorry to butt in here, and I will definitely butt right back out. However, as a former broker with a respectable brokerage house, I would advise you to be more careful. The broker doesn't really care about you. He cares about commissions. And if it comes to her choosing one or the other, be assured, it will be the commissions.

That is a good point. I do try to get advice from others who have invested money--generally for longer periods of time. I generally avoid promises of great riches or hype about how great the market is doing. I'm also more of a fan of diversification.

A quick jump in again. Hey, a "good" broker can diversify you right into the poor house, while still making a pretty commission off you. But, generally, a good idea, the more you have to invest.

[_Who Knows]

The other flaw with this example is that 'the answer' is not passed from one individual to another - only the 'proof' that the individual has the answer is passed.

If we use moroni's promise as an example - I can ask god whether he knows if it's true, and (using this idea) the only thing I'll get back is whether God knows if it's true - you won't find out the actual answer to the question (yes or no that it's true).

I believe the scenario can be changed such that God can prove that He knows the Book of Mormon is true without revealing precisely how He know it.

Wait, I want to get back to this for a second now that I've thought about it a little bit more.

Here's the problem - the information that is passed is observable to anyone. Proof of this can be given to anyone. In other words, the fact that Peggy chose the correct door is observable to anyone. The point of the ZKP isn't to hide the fact that Peggy knows the secret password from anyone, it's to hide the information that she hasn't given out - so that Victor (or anyone) knows she has it. Then, once Victor knows she has it, he'll hand over the money to her - to get the real information he wanted, from her. Neither Peggy or Victor care if anyone else knows that Peggy knows the secret password. All that matters is that Victor knows Peggy knows the secret word - and anyone else is free to know that information as well.

If I've understood the application correctly - something like this might be used in identity verification - so that, for example, a bank wouldn't give out personal information unless they have verified the person's identity. Once the bank knows they're dealing with the right person, then they give out the personal information. However, the method used to verify the identity isn't 'hidden' from anyone - because that's not important. For example, a hacker could 'hear' or 'see' the information exchanged between the individual and the bank to verify identity - but that really doesn't do them any good - in other words - no real information has passed. Once the identity is validated, then the real information exchange begins.

Am I making sense?

[_asbestosman]

Am I making sense?

Yes, but I think the situation can be changed somewhat. If you (or the hackor or whatever) weren't there to witness the exchange, then you cannot know whether or not Victor verified it. I think that Peggy is a bit shy of performing in front of large crowds (even though ZKP does not require such shyness).

Am I making sense? (maybe I shouldn't ask).

[_Sethbag]

I'd like to add a thought with respect to the Zero-Knowledge Proofs. I'll use Victor and Peggy, but I"ll use their names with the example of graphs and the hamiltonian cycle.

The secret information that Peggy knows is the hamiltonian cycle of this particular graph, G. Victor wishes to know this cycle, and proves it using the technique described in the wikipedia article, ie: either asking Peggy to prove her transform from G to H, an isomorphic graph to G, or by giving a hamiltonian cycle in H. If she can perform either act, as requested, many times in a row, then Victor can know that she does in fact have the hamiltonian cycle to G with high confidence.

Ok, here's the problem. Victor and Peggy have to both trust the computer science/graph theory conclusions regarding the relationship between two graphs that are isomorphic, and that a hamiltonian cycle in one graph can be transformed into a hamiltonian cycle in an isomorphic graph to that graph.

In other words, Peggy and Victor both must know and both must trust the underlying theory, the theory that underpins the mechanism by which the proof is accomplished. Without Peggy and Victor both knowing, and agreeing with, the underlying Graph Theory approach being used here, there cannot be any proof.

So how does this apply to TBMs and critics? Well, what underlying theory could you possibly agree on that would underpin a mechanism of proving that one person knows something to the other? Sort of by definition, we dismiss each other's theories as false. There might be some critics who still believe in the Witness of the Spirit, but a lot of critics don't, and so that couldn't be used generally in any sort of proof. The critics (generally), and the TBMs disagree in their fundemental epistemologies. Given such lack of common ground, how could a Zero-Knowledge Proof be created? What common ground exists generally between TBMs and critics that could underpin a mechanism to be used in such a proof?

[_Who Knows]

Am I making sense?

Yes, but I think the situation can be changed somewhat. If you (or the hackor or whatever) weren't there to witness the exchange, then you cannot know whether or not Victor verified it. I think that Peggy is a bit shy of performing in front of large crowds (even though ZKP does not require such shyness).

Am I making sense? (maybe I shouldn't ask).

No, you're not making sense! ;)

I have a diet coke sitting here on my desk. If I knock it off the desk - just because you're not here to actually witness it fall and hit the floor - doesn't mean that the fact that it happened is not verifiable. The actual witnessing of the event is not what's important. Whether the event is 'witnessable' is what's important.

If you change the situation so that Peggy choosing the correct path means that the secret password is 'Moroni', then that answer is observable to anyone. But that is the information that's being protected, so you obviously wouldn't want to set up the situation that way. That's the exact information that Peggy is trying to 'hide' from Victor and everyone else - so it defeats the purpose.

[_asbestosman]

The critics (generally), and the TBMs disagree in their fundemental epistemologies. Given such lack of common ground, how could a Zero-Knowledge Proof be created? What common ground exists generally between TBMs and critics that could underpin a mechanism to be used in such a proof?

I'm not sure if one could be contructed. Actually, I'm not sure that it's important. Peggy and Victor do not represented a TBM and a critic. Rather I think they represent God and a seek of truth. In other words, Victor can be TBM or a critic, but Peggy remains God. Whether a TBM Victor and a critic Victor could agree on the criteria wouldn't matter. All that matters is if VictorTBM and Peggy can agree on some criteria and also that VictorCritic and Peggy can agree on some (possibly different) criteria.

Maybe VictorTBM accepts the graph theory problem and Maybe VictorCritic accepts a number theory problem. Maybe VictorEvangelical accpts a cave with a door opened by a combination padlock. They could all use different methods of verifying the identity of Peggy.

[_Who Knows]

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you're basically setting up ZKP as a piece of knowledge that's only observable to the parties engaging in it. But that's just not true. That's not even the point of ZKP (as far as I can tell). The point, is for one party to be able to verify something about the other party - ZKP doesn't care if everyone knows this.

[_asbestosman]

I have a diet coke sitting here on my desk. If I knock it off the desk - just because you're not here to actually witness it fall and hit the floor - doesn't mean that the fact that it happened is not verifiable. The actual witnessing of the event is not what's important. Whether the event is 'witnessable' is what's important.

It is, of course, witnessable at least in private. But what if God's cave is only large enough for one witness at a time?

If you change the situation so that Peggy choosing the correct path means that the secret password is 'Moroni', then that answer is observable to anyone. But that is the information that's being protected, so you obviously wouldn't want to set up the situation that way. That's the exact information that Peggy is trying to 'hide' from Victor and everyone else - so it defeats the purpose.

Right, the question isn't what the secret is, but rather that Peggy knows it. Likewise, I think what God reveals is that the church is true, not how He knows that.

[_asbestosman]

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you're basically setting up ZKP as a piece of knowledge that's only observable to the parties engaging in it. But that's just not true. That's not even the point of ZKP (as far as I can tell). The point, is for one party to be able to verify something about the other party - ZKP doesn't care if everyone knows this.

You are correct. However, I think ZKP can be tweaked so that my situation fits. If Peggy is omniscient, then she would know if Eve is present and eavesdropping. ZKP in and of itself won't care, but maybe God (and the Great Pumpkin) does, especially if Eve is insincere.

(Eve is a commonly used name for the eavesdropper in cryptographic illustrations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_and_bob

[_Sethbag]

The critics (generally), and the TBMs disagree in their fundemental epistemologies. Given such lack of common ground, how could a Zero-Knowledge Proof be created? What common ground exists generally between TBMs and critics that could underpin a mechanism to be used in such a proof?

I'm not sure if one could be contructed. Actually, I'm not sure that it's important. Peggy and Victor do not represented a TBM and a critic. Rather I think they represent God and a seek of truth. In other words, Victor can be TBM or a critic, but Peggy remains God. Whether a TBM Victor and a critic Victor could agree on the criteria wouldn't matter. All that matters is if VictorTBM and Peggy can agree on some criteria and also that VictorCritic and Peggy can agree on some (possibly different) criteria.

Maybe VictorTBM accepts the graph theory problem and Maybe VictorCritic accepts a number theory problem. Maybe VictorEvangelical accpts a cave with a door opened by a combination padlock. They could all use different methods of verifying the identity of Peggy.

The problem is the same even if Peggy is replaced by God. So, God knows something that Victor (be he critic or tbm) wants, and God has to prove to Victor that he really knows it. So they perform this test. The problem is, and now I see what The Dude was saying earlier, that in a ZKP the criteria for judging the performance of the proof are clear, mutually-agreed upon, and predictable. That is, if I perform this test 20 times in a row, I can know with 99.whatever% confidence that God really knows what he's saying he knows.

The problem is, however, that God apparently doesn't work this way. There is no test whatsoever that can be performed with predictable outcome. Victor could perform the test, not get an answer from God, and the reason could just as likely be that God is testing his faith, as it is that God failed to perform because God doesn't really know what he says he knows.

If God were predictable in this way, we wouldn't be having this argument. The problem is, to the critics it looks like the answers/non-answers from God are perfectly explainable by the hypothesis that God doesn't even exist, and that the "answers" one believes they receive from God are in fact self-induced and self-invented, or else suggested by 3rd parties. To the believers, the answers received or not received by God are explained as God testing our faith, or God operating based on what he knows best for us, and that our ways are not God's ways. So, sometimes you pray and you get what you hoped you'd get, and you latch onto that as "proof", and sometimes you don't get what you'd hoped you'd get, and you explain it away as God testing your faith, or else a renewed determination to keep asking until you get what you'd hoped you'd get.