Efficient Search for Optimal Diffusion Layers of Generalized Feistel Networks

The Feistel construction is one of the most studied ways of building block ciphers. Several generalizations were then proposed in the literature, leading to the Generalized Feistel Network, where the round function first applies a classical Feistel operation in parallel on an even number of blocks, and then a permutation is applied to this set of blocks. In 2010 at FSE, Suzaki and Minematsu studied the diffusion of such construction, raising the question of how many rounds are required so that each block of the ciphertext depends on all blocks of the plaintext. They thus gave some optimal permutations, with respect to this diffusion criteria, for a Generalized Feistel Network consisting of 2 to 16 blocks, as well as giving a good candidate for 32 blocks. Later at FSE’19, Cauchois et al. went further and were able to propose optimal even-odd permutations for up to 26 blocks.In this paper, we complete the literature by building optimal even-odd permutations for 28, 30, 32, 36 blocks which to the best of our knowledge were unknown until now. The main idea behind our constructions and impossibility proof is a new characterization of the total diffusion of a permutation after a given number of rounds. In fact, we propose an efficient algorithm based on this new characterization which constructs all optimal even-odd permutations for the 28, 30, 32, 36 blocks cases and proves a better lower bound for the 34, 38, 40 and 42 blocks cases. In particular, we improve the 32 blocks case by exhibiting optimal even-odd permutations with diffusion round of 9. The existence of such a permutation was an open problem for almost 10 years and the best known permutation in the literature had a diffusion round of 10. Moreover, our characterization can be implemented very efficiently and allows us to easily re-find all optimal even-odd permutations for up to 26 blocks with a basic exhaustive search

Epistemic Perfect Being Theology

Following the result of chapter 2, it is natural for the perfect being theologian to turn to the principle that God is the greatest conceivable being. But this too is a failure. The central problem is that every sense of ‘conceivable’ either (i) collapses conceivability into possibility or (ii) makes room for properties which it is conceivable but impossible for God to have, and better for God to have than lack. A number of possibilities are canvassed. While there is no impossibility proof, the failures of the obvious candidates do not leave one feeling optimistic.

Some combinatorics of imperfect information

We can use the compositional semantics of Hodges [9] to show that any compositional semantics for logics of imperfect information must obey certain constraints on the number of semantically inequivalent formulas. As a corollary, there is no compositional semantics for the ‘independence-friendly’ logic of Hintikka and Sandu (henceforth IF) in which the interpretation in a structure A of each 1 -ary formula is a subset of the domain of A (Corollary 6.2 below proves this and more). After a fashion, this rescues a claim of Hintikka and provides the proof which he lacked:… there is no realistic hope of formulating compositional truth-conditions for [sentences of IF], even though I have not given a strict impossibility proof to that effect.(Hintikka [6] page 110ff.) One curious spinoff is that there is a structure of cardinality 6 on which the logic of Hintikka and Sandu gives nearly eight million inequivalent formulas in one free variable (which is more than the population of Finland).We thank the referee for a sensible change of notation, and Joel Berman and Stan Burris for bringing us up to date with the computation of Dedekind's function (see section 4). Our own calculations, utterly trivial by comparison, were done with Maple V.The paper Hodges [9] (cf. [10]) gave a compositional semantics for a language with some devices of imperfect information. The language was complicated, because it allowed imperfect information both at quantifiers and at conjunctions and disjunctions.