Talk:Burrows-Abadi-Needham logic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Intro

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

[edit] 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)