I have designed an encryption algorithm. The algorithm will probably use CFB mode. The algorithm can encrypt any block size and this does not change the size of the key. There are always about $20$ rounds and the key is always around $128$-bits.  However, the algorithm works much slower when it works on $128$-bits blocks, than on about $32$-bits blocks. What are the block size limitations for a secure cipher? If the key is $128$-bits, can it be encrypted in about $32$-bit blocks? Is it secure?  The only  condition I found is that $n!$ should be greater than $2^{128}$, where $n$ is the block size.
Consider a block cipher with a key of size 128 bits but a small block size, say 32 bits.  Is this kind of block cipher secure?  I would like to know to what extent I can use a small block cipher, like a 32 bit block cipher. What are the constraints so that the use is acceptable in a real life application.  For instance, if we use a one-time key, that is, to encrypt only one message. Besides, the message could be small.  Suppose that when we want so send one file, we perform a key agreement so that we use the key for one message. This scenario is not efficient, but the CPA find-then-guess game is not adequate in this case.
We are in the early stages of development of the official Stack Exchange Android app and we need your help with testing. To set a few expectations: there will be bugs, crashes, and missing features, all of which will be fixed in .    We are initially targeting Android devices running  (Android 4.1 or higher) starting with phones (up to ~5 inch) and eventually moving our way to tablets.    To register for alpha testing .  After you register we will send you an invite to a private Google community where you can find a link to download our app directly from the  store. The invitations will be sent out in waves, so if you don’t get an invite immediately, be patient.  Crash reports will be automatically reported back to us using . Bugs or feature requests should be reported here on meta and tagged . Please do not use the Google community to report bugs.  As always, we welcome your feedback and are committed to building the best mobile app possible for browsing the Stack Exchange sites. On the commutative property of multiplication (domain of integers, possibly reals) $ab = ba$  This is, inherently, true. Some texts drop it like an axiom without any justification. But I'm a bit curious where it stems from or basically why/how it works. If anyone could enlighten me a bit further, I'd be most grateful. Peano axioms? From set theory? Help.  What bugs me with this definition is it's real world "application":  Let's say I have a power output of 5 W ( $kg\cdot m^2 \cdot s^{-3}$) and I want 30% of that power output (to have some units and natural context).  Naturally, 30% is 30 1/100 (% is the unit). For simplicity, let's express that as:  $30$%$ = 30/100 = 3/10 = 3d$ where $d = 1/10$, a simpler unit (because %W would look... Wrong?).  So 30% of power is then $5 W \cdot 3d$, and we can force it to "make sense" if we associate d with W or basically scale the unit of power by d (which is intuitively understood as being 10 times smaller then the output of 1 W) $dW$. And we want to scale these 5 units of $dW$ three times.  $5 dW \cdot 3$  But the commutative property says it is the same as scaling 3 units of $dW$ 5 times or:  $3 dW \cdot 5$  And the result is the same. This is the bit that hurts my head, the fact it is the same. I try to interpret the same as, for example 50 J of work, it's either applying 50 N over 1 m of distance or 1 N over 50 m of distance.    Down here is additional stuff I think I have (you don't have to read it if you know how to answer immediately). I don't claim it's correct, if anyone parses this information, feel free to correct me.  $m\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{1} = n\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{1}$  This is how I've been trying to break it down, as it is repeated addition. It is repeated $n$ times and multiplied by $m$, and reverse on the right side. There is $x = m - n$, so when I multiply $n$ $m$ times, each repeated addition of $n$ lacks exactly $x$ to $m$.  $mn = nm$  $x = m-n$  $m(m-x) = (m-x)m$  $m^2 - mx = m^2 - mx$  $ true $  And yes, sadly, I realise that I am using the very property I'm trying to prove ($xm$ shifted as $mx$ on the right-hand side.)  And it even calls in the distributive property of multiplication over addition which I derive (for myself, informally) from the very nature of multiplication and the way we "process" numbers:  For example, number $55$ times $2$  $55 = 5 \cdot 10^1 + 5 \cdot 10^0 = 5 \cdot 10 + 5 \cdot 1$  $(5 \cdot 10 + 5 \cdot 1) \cdot 2$  This is the basis of our positional notation which appends digits of varying orders of magnitude or units together in a way it makes "sense". Each one is b times bigger than the one to the right. Basic stuff. It is why I expressed 10 and 1 explicitly, those are what I consider units in this case.  Now, from the definition of multiplication, which is at its heart just repeated addition, it is truly the same if you add together $2$ $50$ times and then again $5$ times or "all at once" (figuratively, we are always doing the former mentally) $2$ $55$ times.  That added together gives 110, which is true.  To me, the distributive property (in case of integer multiplication) is a repercussion of the very definition of multiplication which is repeated addition (evading strict concepts). I am not certain whether this is a good way to look at it. Difference between "did + verb" and just "verb+ed" This is something I always get confuse with (native language German). As far as I know "did + verb" is something done and finished in the past. But isn't it the same with "verb + ed"? What are the norms in Ito isometry? Itō isometry from :     Let $W : [0, T] \times \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ denote the canonical   real-valued Wiener process defined up to time $T &gt; 0$, and let $X :  [0, T] \times \Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ be a stochastic process that is   adapted to the natural filtration $\mathcal{F}_{*}^{W}$ of the Wiener   process. Then $$      \mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \int_{0}^{T} X_{t} \, \mathrm{d} W_{t} \right)^{2} \right] = \mathbb{E} \left[ \int_{0}^{T} X_{t}^{2} \,  \mathrm{d} t \right], $$ where $\mathbb{E}$ denotes expectation with   respect to  $\gamma$. In other words, the Itō   stochastic integral, as a function, is an isometry of normed vector   spaces with respect to the norms induced by the inner products $$      ( X, Y )_{L^{2} (W)} := \mathbb{E} \left( \int_{0}^{T} X_{t} \, \mathrm{d} W_{t} \int_{0}^{T} Y_{t} \, \mathrm{d} W_{t} \right) =  \int_{\Omega} \left( \int_{0}^{T} X_{t} \, \mathrm{d} W_{t}  \int_{0}^{T} Y_{t} \, \mathrm{d} W_{t} \right) \, \mathrm{d} \gamma  (\omega) $$ and $$      ( A, B )_{L^{2} (\Omega)} := \mathbb{E} ( A B ) = \int_{\Omega} A(\omega) B(\omega) \, \mathrm{d} \gamma (\omega). $$   I was wondering what the two normed spaces are and what their norms are, so that the two normed spaces are isometric wrt their norms?  Thanks and regards! What are some CD ripping programs for Ubuntu? Can you list the Pros? What are the Cons? For each program there should be a screenshot, sources to install, and instructions to install and use. What is JavaScript's highest integer value that a number can go to without losing precision? i.i.d. random variables uniform distribution One of the joys of high-school mathematics is summing a complicated series to get a “closed-form” expression. And of course many of us have tried summing the harmonic series $H_n =\sum \limits_{k \leq n} \frac{1}{k}$, and failed. But should we necessarily fail?      More precisely, is it known that $H_n$ cannot be written in terms of the elementary functions, say, the rational functions, $\exp(x)$ and $\ln x$? If so, how is such a theorem proved?    Note. When I started writing the question, I was going to ask if it is known that the harmonic function cannot be represented simply as a rational function? But this is easy to see, since $H_n$ grows like $\ln n+O(1)$, whereas no rational function grows logarithmically.  Added note: This  asks a similar question for “elementary integration”. I guess I am asking if there is an analogous theory of “elementary summation”. The American convention in quotations is (typically) to place punctuation inside quoted text. But I always run into situations where the punctuation of the quote interferes with the punctuation of the sentence. How would you punctuate this (American, non technical)?     When my friends ask, "What do you want for your birthday?", I never know how to respond.   It seems odd to place the last comma outside the quote simply because of the question mark. Is that the preferred (i.e. most often accepted) standard? Connected graph with colored edges We have connected undirected graph with colored edges in two way (green or blue). And also each vertex have the same number of green and blue edges. How to prove that there are alternate colored (green-blue) path between any two nodes? What are the criteria used to represent Stack Exchange sites on the sites page? (Grid view) I noticed that  has been changed, and by default sites are shown by balloons.  What is not clear to me is why some sites are shown with a bigger balloon than other sites. For example, WordPress Answers has less questions, answers and users than Programmers, but its balloon is bigger. What are the criteria used to show the sites on that page? Prove that $T$ is an orthogonal projection Let $T$ be a linear operator on a finite-dimensional inner product space $V$. Suppose that $T$ is a projection such that $\|T(x)\| \le \|x\|$ for $x \in V$. Prove that $T$ is an orthogonal projection.    I can't understand well. The definition of orthogonal operator is $\|T(x)\| = \|x\|$. But why that $\|T(x)\| \le \|x\|$ for $x \in V$ means orthogonal projection? Accessing variables from other functions without using global variables There are many beings that have very big powers. There are beings that are worshipped as gods (Asgardians; and I would lump Azazel into that as well since Marvel seems to imply that he's - while a mutant - someone people consider to be "Devil"). There are mutants whose power would clearly have been considered as "god like" by people worshipping Greek or other polytheistic pantheons where the threshold to what made you a god was pretty low.  But are there any actual major "Gods" in Marvel universe?  Since there are many different definition of what a "god" is, the one that is pertinent to this question:   Power wise, being able to create Universe(s); e.g. gods more in a sense of Christianity/Judaism scale rather than "Pan" or "Hestia" in Greek pantheon who merely have some limited supernatural powers over small domain of natural events. Effectively immortal, at least excluding specific exotic attacks. Origin-wise, be "supernatural", not merely a human mutant or a powerful alien with advanced technology. Desire/demand/like followers' worship or prayers. Java volatile reference vs. AtomicReference Gradient and Swiftest Ascent I want to understand intuitively why it is that the gradient gives the direction of steepest ascent. (I will consider the case of $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$)  The standard proof is to note that the directional derivative is $$D_vf=v\cdot \nabla f=|\nabla f|\,\cos\theta$$ which is maximized at $\theta=0$. This is a good verification, but it doesn't really help me understand the result. My brother owns Skyrim on steam. We use Steam Family Share, but we were wondering how both of us could play it at the same time? Is $\langle1-i\rangle$ a maximal ideal in $\mathbb{Z}[i]$? I'm trying to show that $\langle1-i\rangle$ is a maximal ideal of $\mathbb{Z}[i]$.  I started by assuming there is some ideal $A$ that properly contains $\langle1-i\rangle$, and then I want to show that $1 \in A$, and then I will have that $A= \mathbb{Z}[i] $, so $\langle1-i\rangle$ is maximal.  Is this the right approach?  Thanks  Second Attempt: Because $\forall a+bi \in \mathbb{Z}[i]$, we have $a+bi = (a+b) -b(1-i)$, then we have $a+bi - (a+b) = -b(1-i) \in \langle1-i\rangle$, which implies $a+bi +\langle1-i\rangle = a+b +\langle1-i\rangle$.  So every coset is of the form $c +\langle1-i\rangle$, where $c\in \mathbb{R}$.  Furthermore, $-i(1-i)^2=2 \in \langle1-i\rangle$. Write $c = 2q + r$, where $q,r\in \mathbb{R}$ and $r=0,1$.  Then because $2 \in \langle1-i\rangle$, we have $2q\in \langle1-i\rangle$ and therefore $2q= 2q+r-r = c-r\in \langle1-i\rangle$, so $c+\langle1-i\rangle = r+\langle1-i\rangle$, and every coset is of the form $0 + \langle1-i\rangle$ or $1 +\langle1-i\rangle$. Thus, $1 +\langle1-i\rangle$ is the only nonzero element, and is invertible with itself as its inverse.  Thus, $\mathbb{Z}[i]/\langle1-i\rangle$ is a field with two elements, and by a theorem, $\langle1-i\rangle$ must be maximal.  Is this correct? I am downloading macOS Sierra from Mac App Store. But I have electricity problem here. Due to which my iMac will lose power after 2 hours. Now I want to pause the downloading so that I can resume the download later on. How can I do that?  Here is a screenshot. Detecting the onload event of a window opened with window.open