Difference between revisions of "Derek's wiki test space"

From Derek
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Comment box)
 
(145 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
==Comment box==
 
==Comment box==
−
 
+
{| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0.1" style="text-align:left"
−
 
+
−
 
+
−
{| border="2" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0.1" align="center"
+
 
|-
 
|-
 
! style="background:#efefef;" | Tip
 
! style="background:#efefef;" | Tip
Line 19: Line 16:
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
'''Derek Abbott''' was born in South Kensington, London UK in 1960. In 1978, he began work at the [[GEC Hirst Research Centre]], London, UK, and graduated from [[Loughborough University]], UK, with a BSc (Hons) in Physics. At Hirst, he was a Research Engineer until 1986, working in CCD, SOS, CMOS, and vacuum microelectronic technologies. He also worked on solid-state image sensors in the optical and infrared regimes. He migrated to Australia in 1986, and worked at [[Austek Microsystems]] as an analog VLSI design engineer until 1987. In 1987-1990, he was a part-time Research Engineer at the University of Adelaide, and also consulted for a number of companies including Austek Microsystems and British Aerospace. In 1990, he took up a position as a Lecturer at the University of Adelaide, where he completed his PhD in Electrical & Electronic Engineering in 1995 and graduated in 1997. He was promoted to Professor in 2006.  He is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers and also a Fellow of the Institute of Physics.
+
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
{{Infobox
 +
|style      = border:    2px
 +
|bodystyle  = width:      350px
 +
|abovestyle = background: #c8ccd1
 +
|datastyle  = text-align: left 
 +
 
 +
|above      = Comment box testing
 +
 
 +
 
 +
|data1      = Description to our knowledge, the provable security property is often taught as being self evident and is not questioned on any level (recent advances in quantum hacking may be an exception; however, such attacks are based on discrepancies between the model and real systems as opposed to the security of the model itself). The commonly cited reason for no-cloning or quantum entanglement is very far from sufficient. Even in the technical literature, a key is often regarded as perfect whenever it is used in an application. One main purpose of this paper is to correct such a misconception and to demonstrate how the imperfect generated key affects the security proofs themselves.
 +
 
 +
}}
  
 
==Symbol==
 
==Symbol==
Line 32: Line 43:
  
 
I owe you $20
 
I owe you $20
 +
 +
==Download test==
 +
 +
* [[File: test.pdf]]
  
 
==Infoboxtest==
 
==Infoboxtest==

Latest revision as of 17:13, 25 February 2024

Test space

Heading 1 Heading 2
Data 1 Data 2


Comment box

Tip
Description  to our knowledge, the provable security property is often taught as being self evident and is not questioned on any level (recent advances in quantum hacking may be an exception; however, such attacks are based on discrepancies between the model and real systems as opposed to the security of the model itself). The commonly cited reason for no-cloning or quantum entanglement is very far from sufficient. Even in the technical literature, a key is often regarded as perfect whenever it is used in an application. One main purpose of this paper is to correct such a misconception and to demonstrate how the imperfect generated key affects the security proofs themselves.



Comment box testing
Description to our knowledge, the provable security property is often taught as being self evident and is not questioned on any level (recent advances in quantum hacking may be an exception; however, such attacks are based on discrepancies between the model and real systems as opposed to the security of the model itself). The commonly cited reason for no-cloning or quantum entanglement is very far from sufficient. Even in the technical literature, a key is often regarded as perfect whenever it is used in an application. One main purpose of this paper is to correct such a misconception and to demonstrate how the imperfect generated key affects the security proofs themselves.

Symbol

__MATHJAX_NODOLLAR__ I owe you 20.

I owe you $20



I owe you $20

Download test

Infoboxtest

Infobox testing
Code 1.jpg
Main Heading
First set of data
Remove this line (optional)

OK this is the test bed for the u-beaut infobox. What a pain to install. For the record, I followed the info at this link: http://www.etcwiki.org/wiki/Mediawiki_template_guide

Why the heck why isn't this a file you can just unpackage into a directory rather than having to manually create 20 files, I don't know.

I owe you $20

More Testing

  • [math]\int_a^y f(\alpha\,)\,dy[/math]
  • [math]\int_b^y f(\alpha\,)\,dy,{\rm does~it~work?}[/math]
  • [math]\int_b^y f(\alpha\,)\,dy,{\rm not~quite,~as~referencing~is~cactus.}[/math]
  • [math]\int_b^y f(\alpha\,)\,dy,cactii eradicated[/math]


According to scientists, the Sun is pretty big.[1] The Moon, however, is not so big.[2]

Green-rectangle.gif


MathJax Test

Here is an inline equation: \( x^2 \)

Here is a display equation: \begin{align} \int 2x \; dx &= x^2 + C \tag{1}\label{eqn:integral} \end{align}

That last equation was Eqn. \ref{eqn:integral}.

\( \int_a^y f(\alpha\,)\,dy , \)

and in display form

\[ \int_a^y f(\alpha\,)\,dy . \]

Scratch

Therefore, the minimal cost = $50 million [math]\times[/math] 360 = $18,000 million = $18 billion. The maximal cost is = $50 million [math]\times[/math] 20,300 = $1,016,500 million = $1 trillion (approx).

Scratch pad downloads

Presentations

Notes relating to Test space

  1. ↑ E. Miller, The Sun, (New York: Academic Press, 2005), 23-5.
  2. ↑ R. Smith, "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 46 (April 1978): 44-6.
Retrieved from "https://www1.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/personal/dabbott/wiki/index.php?title=Derek%27s_wiki_test_space&oldid=23391"