Hmmm... It's the other way around for me. I find it hard to memorise things I don't actually understand.

I remember being given a proof of why RSA encryption is secure. All the other students just regurgitated it. It made superficial sense I guess.

However, I could not understand the proof and felt quite stupid. Eventually I went to my professor for help. He admitted the proof he had given was incomplete (and showed me why it still worked). He also said he hadn't expected anyone to notice it wasn't a complete proof.

▲

jghn 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Hmmm... It's the other way around for me. I find it hard to memorise things I don't actually understand.

I think you two are agreeing. GP said that they found they couldn't memorize something until they actually understood it

▲

MattPalmer1086 4 days ago | parent [-]

You're correct, I read it the wrong way!

	▲	blackoil 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hope now you'll remember it :P

▲

benterix 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>> I realized that it was impossible to memorize a proof without understanding it!

> I find it hard to memorise things I don't actually understand.

Isn't it the parent's point?

	▲	MattPalmer1086 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yep, I misread the parent post.

▲

pigeons 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I remember being given a proof of why RSA encryption is secure

With what assumptions?

	▲	MattPalmer1086 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Mostly just integer factorisation of large numbers is hard. There are some other things you have to worry about practically, e.g Coppersmith's attack, and padding schemes (although that wasn't part of the proof I was given)

▲

widforss 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But, is it proven that RSA is secure? Wouldn't that also prove P != NP?

	▲	MattPalmer1086 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Haha, well it does depend on the assumption that integer factorisation is hard. Although I'm not sure that being able to do it implies P = NP.