Talk:Burrows–Abadi–Needham logic: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Matt Crypto (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:''...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. |
|||
Revision as of 08:30, 16 November 2005
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?
- ...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.