Dataset of Hard Instances of SUBSET-SUM

I know for factoring we have the RSA Numbers, in which factoring one of them quickly (usually) indicates a breakthrough in the field. However, I want to know if there’s something similar for SUBSET-SUM, in which there are hard instances that if solved, would be a "big deal"? I found this, but they don’t seem to be unsolved.

One way would to take the RSA numbers, convert them to 3-SAT, then convert to SUBSET-SUM, but the weights generated are very large. Maybe there’s a way to convert FACTOR (the special case of two prime factors, to be specific) to SUBSET-SUM?

PDA Directory Listing – Why Are They So Hard to Find?

There are a couple of sites that offer this assistance for nothing at no charge, anyway they are restricted to landline telephone numbers just much of the time. It is less normal to discover switch records for business, complementary, pager, and particularly cell numbers. phone number list Utilizing one of the numerous far reaching reverse telephone catalog is your most ideal alternative however there are a couple different choices to attempt if your outcomes are erroneous or when your inquiry from telephone number is fruitless. Be careful with deceiving sites that guarantee you with lies and wrong data. The reason for the majority of these kind of sites is to attempt to get you to tap on advertisements.

This is the manner by which the webpage brings in cash and doesn’t really give you access to any retrogressive telephone indexed lists yet may just duplicate bits of data from different locales and show on their site.Watch out for spam sites that deceive you with incorrect data basically to get you to tap on advertisements showed on the website. There are in reality more locales like this that there are dependable converse and in reverse telephone directories.You can look from telephone number utilizing an internet searcher like Google. Most business list their telephone numbers somebody on the web and even individuals can will in general post their number on person to person communication locales like MySpace or Facebook.

Why are mathematical proofs so hard?

i am an electrical engineer and trying to make a transition into machine learning. I read in multiple articles that i have to learn data structures and algorithms, before this i have to learn about mathematical proofs. I started studying it on my own using the material available on mit’s ocw, while i did grasp the concepts of induction and well ordering etc.. I’ve been struggling with the exercises for a very long time and it’s really frustrating. I can easily deal with any type of proofs that i saw before ( eg. once i saw the proof of a recurrence question i became pretty good at prooving them). My problems start when i face an unusual question. I feel like i am memorizing the proofs rather than learn how to prove. is there any way ( or any resources) that can improve my proving skills ? in a way that whenever i see an unusual question ( like the checkers tiles and chess tiles type of questions) i dont have to stare at them for 2 hours before giving up

Hard Wired Man in the Middle Logging

I am wanting to set up a single logging point on my home network that logs URLs and search terms to monitor teenagers… um… activity.

I was thinking of setting up a computer between the cable modem and the router, which would capture all network traffic. The upside would be no need for arp spoofing, the downside would be you would lose specific device information for if the traffic was on a wireless tablet vs wired PC.

I have played with Kali a little, and while there are some cool things like driftnet, urlsnarf, and arpspoof, they all seem to be to target a single device, and seems most tutorials are for creating wireless hotspots.

With thousands of tools available, I am not sure where to start on this, where I am wanting basically a consolidated browser history from all devices on the network.

I have a PC with a 4 port GB network card and an SSD available with Kali installed. Is my plan of putting it between the router and modem good, or should I stick with arp spoofing past the router? The router is a Linksys 1200AC.

How hard would it be to state P vs. NP in a proof assistant?

GJ Woeginger lists 116 invalid proofs of P vs. NP problem. Scott Aaronson published "Eight Signs A Claimed P≠NP Proof Is Wrong" to reduce hype each time someone attempts to settle P vs. P. Some researchers even refuse to proof-read papers settling the "P versus NP" question.

I have 3 related questions:

  1. Why are people not using proof assistants that could verify whether a proof of P vs. NP is correct?
  2. How hard or how much effort would it be to state P vs. NP in a proof assistant in the first place?
  3. Is there currently any software that would be at least in principle capable of verifying a P vs. NP proof?

How hard is it to hack the JWT HS256 algo?

By convention, I see a lot of folks using this approach to generate a private key from a nodejs console:

require('crypto').randomBytes(64).toString('hex') 

But considering I could input other values besides 0-9 and A-Z, I wondered if my key would be more secure if I used other non hex-only characters?

Second, if my key is 64 bytes for the HS256 algo., how much time would it take an attacker to brute force the signature? My JWTs are only valid for 15 minutes, but that doesn’t stop an attacker from logging in, grabbing an access-token and brute forcing it.

My JWTs maintain 3 claims that I don’t encrypt — the email address of the user, the user’s ID (which never changes) and a boolean value. I was considering appending to my key the hash value of the user’s ID so that brute forcing the key (if successful) would only yield the password for that one user as the attacker would likely not realize that I appended the hash of the user’s ID.

I’m just concerned that JWTs aren’t as secure as session IDs in a cookie as I can control how many requests an attacker can make from my endpoints but can’t control a brute force against an offline verify.

Fall of Plaguestone: why is my group failing so hard? [Contains Spoilers]

I’m new to pathfinder and started it with my group on roll20 due to Corona. I have decade long gm experience in in games like DSA (Das Schwarze Auge) and Shadowrun but not for Dungeon Crawlers.

Long story short: We are playing the Fall of Plaguestone module and my group (Rogue, Sorcerer, Paladin and Priest) needed hard intervention from my part as not to die on multiple encounters. Since I still need to get a feel for the difficulty I’m not changing anything from the module and play it by the letter.

The group nearly died by: (contains spoilers)

Enemies are totally able to one-hit my players with a critical hit and I feel the only reason they survive at all are the mighty resurrection possibilities of the priest (the 3 action heal). I’m looking for advice how to make the adventure more fun by not obviously saving my group but also for other opinion on how difficult that module is.

Is realization of unit disk graphs hard?

It is known that recognizing a unit disk graph is NP-hard [1].

However, the paper does not mention how hard is the realization problem.

I have looked up several references [2][3][4]. None of the papers answer whether the following problem is NP-hard:

Given a unit disk graph $ G = (V,E)$ , find a configuration of a set $ \mathcal{D}$ of disks, such that the intersection graph $ G(\mathcal{D})$ of $ \mathcal{D}$ is isomorphic to $ G$ .

The difference between this problem and the recognition problem is that the input of this problem is guaranteed to be a unit disk.

Is there any study that shows the complexity of the above problem? I expect it to be NP-hard, but I am yet to find a full proof.