Talk:Burrows–Abadi–Needham logic

Untitled

I've replaced one line with TeX. More of the same is needed in this article. Michael Hardy 01:25 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and the reason I didn't go ahead with it in the first place is that I knew I was going to need to experiment with TeX itself to figure out the right ways to manufacture the various glyphs. Until then, I think the use of English words is acceptable. Dominus 00:02 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the link to one of my own peer-reviewed papers, but it is I think the simplest one justifying that BAN is decidable. David.Monniaux 17:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems good to me (!); I've moved it into a references section. — Matt 09:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eh?

...one weakness of BAN logic: the lack of a good semantics with a clear meaning in terms of knowledge and possible universes.

Erk...can someone reword this with a slightly clearer meaning?— Matt 09:39, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm on it.

Intro

I've rewritten the intro. I look forward to feedback. --Davidstrauss 19:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Source: The Burrows-Abadi-Needham logic The link is dead as of (see sig/timestamp)--Bah23 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Citeseer moved from NEC to PSU. I fixed the link. --Dominus 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)