Talk:Alice and Bob/Draft
But what about Ted and Carol?
"Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" is the first thing that comes to mind when I see this. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Date of birth?
Do you know when (approximately?) Alice and Bob first appeared? Could they be immigrants from game theory?
As for the additional characters: Were they present in the first edition, too? If so, then this edition should be cited as the "origin" of the names. (If you do not know, I probably can check it.)
--Peter Schmitt 12:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have the 1st edition of AC.
- The biography we link to is from a 1984 conference on coding theory. Alice & Bob were not new then; Gordon mentions "some longstanding traditional reason" for the names and says "there are hundreds of papers about Alice and Bob". The original RSA paper, 1978, uses Alice & Bob. Beyond that, I've no idea of their birthdate, or for that matter, their parentage. Sandy Harris 10:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- The WP article [1] and a Network World story they link to say the origin is the RSA paper. Sandy Harris 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I added a link to the Network World story and text that follows them in attributing the names to Rivest. Sandy Harris 01:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comparing to WP
The Wikipedia article [2] has a far longer list of names, most of which I do not think we need. I did add a sentence about creating additional characters as needed.
I wonder about their additions, Arthur & Merlin or Paul & Carole, related to interactive proof systems. I do not know enough about those systems to know if we should add them. Sandy Harris 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I added them, partly by copying WP text. What, if anything, needs to be done about attribution?
- Grammarians, including Chomsky but I do not know if it originated with him, often use John & Mary. I find such examples strange. To me, Mary was my first wife & John is her second husband. Sandy Harris 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Approval Process: Review period
Call for review: Peter Schmitt 13:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Call for Approval: --Peter Schmitt 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Approval Notice:
Certification of Approval:
Please discuss the article below, Alice and Bob/Approval is for brief official referee's only!
Comments
I agree with Sandy that this is ready to be reviewed. --Peter Schmitt 13:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Link broken, ref #3. Anthony.Sebastian 15:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me (a .pdf file). --Peter Schmitt 20:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I checked it incorrectly. Works for me now. Sorry to be a bother. Wonder if we should tell users somewhere that some links may be to PDF files, in which case they would need a PDF reader program for the click to work (I believe). —Anthony.Sebastian 22:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the small icon carries this information, but I agree: I prefer more explicit information, too. Thus I have changed the formatting of the references (adding file types). --Peter Schmitt 23:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
+++++
←Peter, as you are Editor in both Computer and Mathematics workgroups, the applicable categories for this article, I will put your name on the metadata page as first nominating editor. —Anthony.Sebastian 23:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
←Sandy, did you want to leave the Bibliography subpage blank? —Anthony.Sebastian 23:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Usually, I prefer the bibliography over references in the article. However, in this case the references are really only pointers that fit well on the article page. I don't think there is a good entry for the bibliography. (We could move all the references there, or we could move the External links subpage there.) --Peter Schmitt 23:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)