2
$\begingroup$

The tag is firstly used in Aug 12,2020 and currently there are two questions.

The noise in modern cryptography is almost inevitable. We use it to mitigate from the determinism and in hiding, etc.

There are lots of Questions and Answers in our site that will need this tag if we assume to use. I don't see a reason to use noise as a tag.

| |
$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

The below has now been carried out. If there's a feeling that should be merged into this will always be possible to be done later (possibly after a meta discussion).


As it stands the tag name is not really optimal. This is because it could refer to both the noise family of protocols as well as the more usual variation in measurements / the randomness introduced to mask / hide actual values (eg in FHE).

Looking through our search results for the term "noise" it appears we have quite a few questions, so it seems sensible to create a which would be a specialization from standard uniform randomness to some usually more gaussian distribution (we have some questions e.g. about Perlin and other forms of noise).

Additionally it seems like we also have a few questions about the noise protocol / framework and creating (optionally synonymed with ) also seems like a good idea.

As for itself I think it is too ambiguous to be really valuable here and should thus be removed.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not convinced that random-noise shouldn't be a synonym of randomness. (Then again, I'm not convinced that it should be, either.) But I do agree that we should have both tags, even if only as synonyms, so that someone typing "noise" into the tag box gets both of them suggested and can choose the right one. $\endgroup$ – Ilmari Karonen Sep 10 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ @IlmariKaronen I can see an argument for a dedicated noise tag along the lines of "I have a source of uniform randomness, how do I get this other distribution" whereas a randomness tag would be more about the reverse direction (I have this weird source of randomness, how do I fix it to be uniform") $\endgroup$ – SEJPM Sep 13 at 12:27
2
$\begingroup$
  • No, we don't need this tag.

    • Fill reasons the community.
| |
$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$
  • Yes we need this tag

    • It is good classification.
    • Fill reasons the community.
| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .