Chapter 4: Incorrect elliptical curve addition graph about bitcoinbook

[enderminh]

I don't understand the math behind this, so will assign to Andreas for commenting.

Scott -- would you also mind describing the exact expected vs. actual graphic? What would you have expected the graphic to be like?

[bannerts]

The graph would stay the same in form, however instead of each term being
incremented as G, 2G, 3G, 4G, ... et as would be by the process of simply
adding G to each consecutive term (intersections with lines formed by
tangents add each point to themself and have no knowledge of the value of
some arbitrary G which for a specific instance such that it doesnt depend
on notation). Basically, the sequence should go G, 2G, 4G, 8G, 16G, etc
instead of G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G because adding subsequent terms (such as 2G)
with themself would not have knowledge of a specific random previous value
(such that 2G + 2G = 3G as shown) and be consistent - what if a world
existed where I chose 2G = H, then H+H = 3G which makes little sense.

Specifically, to descirbe the corrected graph the following changes should
be made:
3G -> 4G
4G -> 8G
5G -> 16G

Also, I would think it would be advantageous to tell andreas that having an
additional graph showing addition of two points (not being the same)
through the process of drawing a line through them and finding the graphs
3rd intersection point (if it exists) would be very helpful.

I know this is in the later chapters which have been authored by him which
I suspect have not been as reviewed as the previous ones, however I feel
this is something that must be corrected based on fundamentals as it is
either very misleading or incorrect. Im sure he will recognize the error
(or possibly further clarify any misinterpretations), as I have been paying
attention to him for about 6 months now as he has become a public icon in
the bitcoin community.

Thank you

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Minh T. Nguyen [email protected]
wrote:

I don't understand the math behind this, so will assign to Andreas for
commenting.

Scott -- would you also mind describing the exact expected vs. actual
graphic? What would you have expected the graphic to be like?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/aantonop/bitcoinbook/issues/34#issuecomment-44792691.

Scott Bannert

Cell: [phone]

[aantonop]

Excellent point, you are correct. I will correct it ASAP. I will also add
a point addition chart as you suggested
On Jun 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Scott Bannert" [email protected] wrote:

The graph would stay the same in form, however instead of each term being
incremented as G, 2G, 3G, 4G, ... et as would be by the process of simply
adding G to each consecutive term (intersections with lines formed by
tangents add each point to themself and have no knowledge of the value of
some arbitrary G which for a specific instance such that it doesnt depend
on notation). Basically, the sequence should go G, 2G, 4G, 8G, 16G, etc
instead of G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G because adding subsequent terms (such as 2G)
with themself would not have knowledge of a specific random previous value
(such that 2G + 2G = 3G as shown) and be consistent - what if a world
existed where I chose 2G = H, then H+H = 3G which makes little sense.

Specifically, to descirbe the corrected graph the following changes should
be made:
3G -> 4G
4G -> 8G
5G -> 16G

Also, I would think it would be advantageous to tell andreas that having
an
additional graph showing addition of two points (not being the same)
through the process of drawing a line through them and finding the graphs
3rd intersection point (if it exists) would be very helpful.

I know this is in the later chapters which have been authored by him which
I suspect have not been as reviewed as the previous ones, however I feel
this is something that must be corrected based on fundamentals as it is
either very misleading or incorrect. Im sure he will recognize the error
(or possibly further clarify any misinterpretations), as I have been
paying
attention to him for about 6 months now as he has become a public icon in
the bitcoin community.

Thank you

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Minh T. Nguyen [email protected]
wrote:

I don't understand the math behind this, so will assign to Andreas for
commenting.

Scott -- would you also mind describing the exact expected vs. actual
graphic? What would you have expected the graphic to be like?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/aantonop/bitcoinbook/issues/34#issuecomment-44792691.

Scott Bannert

Cell: [phone]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/aantonop/bitcoinbook/issues/34#issuecomment-44792989
.

[bannerts]

I've attached some pages from a reference that I think does a good job
describing the details discussed above. I think referencing this resource
as much as possible and using a similar graphic would be ideal as they do a
really good job which I see no need for improvement.
On Jun 1, 2014 6:47 PM, "Andreas M. Antonopoulos" [email protected]
wrote:

Excellent point, you are correct. I will correct it ASAP. I will also add
a point addition chart as you suggested
On Jun 1, 2014 7:41 PM, "Scott Bannert" [email protected] wrote:

The graph would stay the same in form, however instead of each term
being
incremented as G, 2G, 3G, 4G, ... et as would be by the process of
simply
adding G to each consecutive term (intersections with lines formed by
tangents add each point to themself and have no knowledge of the value
of
some arbitrary G which for a specific instance such that it doesnt
depend
on notation). Basically, the sequence should go G, 2G, 4G, 8G, 16G, etc
instead of G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G because adding subsequent terms (such as
2G)
with themself would not have knowledge of a specific random previous
value
(such that 2G + 2G = 3G as shown) and be consistent - what if a world
existed where I chose 2G = H, then H+H = 3G which makes little sense.

Specifically, to descirbe the corrected graph the following changes
should
be made:
3G -> 4G
4G -> 8G
5G -> 16G

Also, I would think it would be advantageous to tell andreas that having
an
additional graph showing addition of two points (not being the same)
through the process of drawing a line through them and finding the
graphs
3rd intersection point (if it exists) would be very helpful.

I know this is in the later chapters which have been authored by him
which
I suspect have not been as reviewed as the previous ones, however I feel
this is something that must be corrected based on fundamentals as it is
either very misleading or incorrect. Im sure he will recognize the error
(or possibly further clarify any misinterpretations), as I have been
paying
attention to him for about 6 months now as he has become a public icon
in
the bitcoin community.

Thank you

On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Minh T. Nguyen [email protected]

wrote:

I don't understand the math behind this, so will assign to Andreas for
commenting.

Scott -- would you also mind describing the exact expected vs. actual
graphic? What would you have expected the graphic to be like?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/aantonop/bitcoinbook/issues/34#issuecomment-44792691>.

Scott Bannert

Cell: [phone]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/aantonop/bitcoinbook/issues/34#issuecomment-44792989>
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/aantonop/bitcoinbook/issues/34#issuecomment-44793113.

[aantonop]

Fixed