Talk:Burrows–Abadi–Needham logic: Difference between revisions
Matt Crypto (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Cryptography}}. Tag: |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
{{WikiProject Cryptography|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Technical|date=September 2010}} |
|||
==Untitled== |
|||
I've replaced one line with TeX. More of the same is needed in this article. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 01:25 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC) |
I've replaced one line with TeX. More of the same is needed in this article. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 01:25 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 15: | ||
:''...one weakness of BAN logic: the lack of a good semantics with a clear meaning in terms of knowledge and possible universes.'' |
:''...one weakness of BAN logic: the lack of a good semantics with a clear meaning in terms of knowledge and possible universes.'' |
||
Erk...can someone reword this with a slightly clearer meaning?[[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt]] 09:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
Erk...can someone reword this with a slightly clearer meaning?[[User:Matt Crypto|— Matt]] 09:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
||
Yes, I'm on it. |
|||
== Intro == |
|||
I've rewritten the intro. I look forward to feedback. --[[User:Davidstrauss|Davidstrauss]] 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== External links == |
|||
''Source: The Burrows-Abadi-Needham logic'' The link is dead as of (see sig/timestamp)--[[User:Bah23|Bah23]] 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Citeseer moved from NEC to PSU. I fixed the link. --[[User:Dominus|Dominus]] 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:30, 29 January 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
Untitled
[edit]I've replaced one line with TeX. More of the same is needed in this article. Michael Hardy 01:25 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
I agree, and the reason I didn't go ahead with it in the first place is that I knew I was going to need to experiment with TeX itself to figure out the right ways to manufacture the various glyphs. Until then, I think the use of English words is acceptable. Dominus 00:02 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry about the link to one of my own peer-reviewed papers, but it is I think the simplest one justifying that BAN is decidable. David.Monniaux 17:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Seems good to me (!); I've moved it into a references section. — Matt 09:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Eh?
[edit]- ...one weakness of BAN logic: the lack of a good semantics with a clear meaning in terms of knowledge and possible universes.
Erk...can someone reword this with a slightly clearer meaning?— Matt 09:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm on it.
Intro
[edit]I've rewritten the intro. I look forward to feedback. --Davidstrauss 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
External links
[edit]Source: The Burrows-Abadi-Needham logic The link is dead as of (see sig/timestamp)--Bah23 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Citeseer moved from NEC to PSU. I fixed the link. --Dominus 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)