Lecture 34, As-Salaam-Alaikum. Welcome to the virtual university's course on business and technical communication. In today's lesson, we will be looking at common writing problems and how to avoid them. All of us as writers at some point or the other face particular problems. A lot of these problems are individual to us, but most of these problems are common for many writers. And today, we will look at the most commonly found problems that writers face. In this lecture, we will learn about writer's block which could be because of the lack of a well defined purpose or poorly analyzed structure or audience or lack of confidence or organizational problems. We will also look at punctuation problems, readability problems, with writing style which could be due to organizational logic, problems with logic of organization or they could be problems with the mechanical development of the topic or the writer's style or quality of the manuscript. Let us have a look at writer's block. What exactly do we mean when we say writer's block? I am sure a lot of you have heard of the term, but a lot of the times we are not really sure what it exactly means. We know that when we get stuck with writing, then generally we say that we are facing a writer's block. Although the results of a writer's block are the same that writing gets blocked, there are many sources of writer's block. And the reasons for this, a writer's block could be lack of information, lack of a well defined purpose, poor knowledge of the audience or lack of confidence. In chaaroon cheezon ki wajah se ek writer's block hosakta hai, writing mein block aasakta hai aur likhne mein doswari hosakti hai. Let us have a look at the first of these, lack of information. If you feel that you are not able to write more because you are lacking in some information, then the solution is very very simple. Get more information. If you are suffering because of lack of information, then all you need to do is go out and get more information. But naturally it is not always as simple as this. First one has to decide that you do not have enough information. Agar to aapko pata hai ki aap ke pahas information kam hai, phir to uska koi, usme koi problem hi nahi hai. Phir aap mazid information jama karni hai aur phir se likhna shuru karni hai. Lekin problem tab hoti hai jab likhne mein doswari ho rahe ho, lekin yeh nahi andaza ho rahe ho ke yeh doswari ish wajah se ho rahe hai ke information mein kami hai. A lot of the times we have a lot of information but none of it is useful and even then we are actually facing a lack of information because useless information is of no use to us. So you need to decide what the problem is unless you are sure that you require more information you will not go out and get it. The surest clue of facing lack of information is if you find yourself being repetitious, if you are repeating yourself a lot or you are writing in circles and not getting anywhere.  After you have decided that you do not have enough information or the right kind of information, you will have to discover the cause of it. Akhir yeh aase kyu hai ke aap ke pahas information kam hai yaa sahi ke such information nahi hai kyunke aap toh zahere jab likh mein baat hai toh aap apmin tarab se khasi information jama karke hi ek kam ko karne baat hai. Toh kya yeh kis wajah se hai ke aapki information jo hai wo poori nahi baad hai. Is it because you have not researched your ideas thoroughly? Shahid aapne jo research ki wo kam thi, aapne ideas ko thik se research nahi kya, thik se expanding kya or is it because you have kept poor records? Shahid aapne information toh bohat lii, lekin aapne usko thik se record nahi kya, thik se usko likha nahi, kahin usko jama nahi kya aur isle baap ko yaad nahi aare hi wo information. Toh isle doh causes ho sakte hai lack of information ke poor research and poor records. If your lack of information is the result of poor research, then you will have to stop writing and do more information gathering. You will have to stop and do more research. Aapko lagta hai ki aapki research mein kuch kameethi toh aap usko poori karenge. And if you find yourself stopping at many points to do more research, then you might guess that you have a problem in defining your communication purpose. Agar aapko ye lagra hai ki aapko baar baar rukke ye feeling ho rahi hai ki research mein kameethi. Mujhe aur information chahaye. Mujhe aur research karne hai aur thir bhi jab aap aur research karlethe hai aur aap dhabara lik na shalu kar din toh phir aapko ye hi lagta hai ki abhi meri research mukamal nahi hai. Mujhe mazeeth topics ke par aur research karne hai. Toh phir iska wato bhi hai ki aapka jo communication purpose hai aapko abhi wo hi clear nahi hua hai. Toh isle bhetar ye ho ga ke pehle aap apna purpose apne aapko define kare. Aur phir aap research karna shalu kare phir aap information gathering karna shalu kare. If your lack of information is the result of poor records, then you will have to redo some of the research in order to refresh your memory. Ho sakta hai aapne research pehle kihi ho, lekin aapne records thikse nahi rakhe ho. Toh phir aapko wo research dubhara karne padegi, ta ke aapko yad aajaye ke aapne kya kya cheez hai, kya ke aapko information mili thi. Aur phir aap usko actually record karne, kehi note down karne. The lesson that you learn from this is very clear. Don't trust your memory at all. Don't trust yourself to remember anything. Always make a note of it or record it or write it down in some form or the other so that you have a permanent record of it and you can come back to it whenever you want. If it is important, whatever information you have, if it is important or it seems that it might be important, then write it down. Beshak aapko usfak yeh sure naho aap, yeh jo mai cheez, maine, mujhe information mili hai, yeh important hai, yeh nahi hai, lekin aapko andesha ho. Ke shail aage jaakyaatko yeh important lagye, yeh aage jaakyaatko kaam ki ho to usfak aap usko likh liye jaye. Now, regardless of what the cause was of your lack of information, whether it was poor records or poor research, when you discover that there was lack of information and that is why you have write as block, block, then you must stop writing. Agar aapko pata chal gaya, mujhe meri pass information kaam hai, aur iski wajase mujhe write as block ho raha hai, to feir aap usfak likh nahi bandh kar dijiye. Because continuing to write at this point will really accomplish nothing. It will only make you frustrated. There will be nothing positive coming out of it. Kyuke zahe raha hai jab aapko aapko ek write as block ho gaya hai, aapki writing waha block ho gaya hai.  After you have resolved the lack of information, then you can begin writing again. The important skill to develop is the ability to notice that a lack of information is the source of writer's block that you are facing. Unless you are able to identify why you are facing writer's block, unless you are able to identify that it is because of lack of information, you will not be able to correct that lack. Remember that the clue I mentioned earlier, the clue is a lot of the times that you are repeating yourself and that is what tells you that you need more information. Another source of writer's block is the lack of a well defined purpose. A poorly defined purpose of your communication will inevitably make your writing more difficult and it may block it all together. Sometimes you will experience this as a lack of information. Often you will notice it as paragraphs, sections or entire reports or papers that will shift in the middle, the topic will shift in the middle of a paragraph or a section or a report or a paper and that shows that the purpose is not very well defined. For any case of poorly defined purpose the solution is very simple. You need to develop a three part purpose statement for the communication and develop an outline of topic sentences based on the purpose statement. Whatever your communication purpose is, note it down in three parts and then write the topic sentences of your paragraphs that are related to those purposes. This will make your paragraphs always match your communication purpose. Another reason for writer's block could be poorly analyzed audience or audience that has not been analyzed at all. At such times you will find yourself staring at the computer screen wondering who is going to read your report and what on earth they want from it. So you need to recognize that you need to analyze your audience better and that because your audience has not been analyzed properly you are facing writer's block. So once you recognize that then you need to answer these two important questions. Who is going to read your report and what do they want from it. When you answer these questions then you can analyze your audience properly. So the solution to poorly analyzed audience is to stop writing again and analyze your audience. Who they are, what do they want. Once you have done that you can overcome your writer's block and start writing again. Another reason why we face writer's block is lack of confidence. Lack of confidence in your abilities as a writer makes you feel that you are not good enough to write what you are writing. If you do not think that you can communicate effectively you will not be able to. If you can think about yourself The more you follow a writing process that works, the more positive you will be able to do it. If you feel that if you are thinking that this cannot work with me, then it will not work with you. So, until you have confidence in yourself, you will not be able to complete the tasks you are doing properly. Practice your systematic approaches of writing problems to solve this problem. The more you follow a writing process that works, the more positive feedback you will receive about your reports and papers. And consequently, the more confidence you will develop in your communication skills. So, basically lack of confidence is the solution to practice. The more you practice, the more improvement you will have in your writing. The more feedback you will get, the better your confidence will be. If you find that you are stuck, that you are facing a block, whatever you do, don't continue to write because that will accomplish nothing. Stop there. Think why you are facing this problem, what the problem is. Try to remedy that problem first and then continue writing. This way you will actually waste less time rather than if you sit and keep trying to write again and again without finding out what the real problem is. Writers also face organizational problems. Organizational problems are discovered during the editing phase. Finding and fixing these organizational problems is what makes editing important. That is why we put so much effort into editing. Because the time of editing, the problems in the organization can be done better. If organizational problems are not fixed, then readers experience organizational problems as complete breakdowns in communication. The meaning of communication is not understood if there are any problems in the organization. The problem is that while reading, there is a break or a gap. The readers don't understand the connections or links. This can have a significant consequence since your readers will have to puzzle out how the writer got from one point of information to another. And no reader appreciates doing that. What would happen is that many readers will not read on. If the readers feel that they are not getting connections or they are not understanding that the writer was writing and you are writing something else. What is the relationship between these things? How does it reach from here to here? Obviously they will have to stop and think a lot. They will have to make a relationship between them. What happens most is that when people come to this point, they stop reading. Writers also face punctuation problems. That is a very common problem that we encounter in writing. Accurate punctuation does not always ensure accurate communication.  It is not necessary that if your punctuation is correct in your writing then the meaning of your writing is exactly right for the reader. But it is necessary that if your punctuation is bad or poor then the meaning of your communication can be changed and it can be difficult to understand.  We are going to have a look at a punctuation test. I would like you to look at centres without looking at the correct version. Just look at the incorrect version and see how well you can punctuate it and then take a look at the corrected version. This test focuses on the most common punctuation problems in technical writing. Incorrectly, this sentence is written, Professor Bashir wrote the future of artificial intelligence. He has become well known as a result. I have read this sentence without any punctuation. But there was no punctuation in writing except that there is a full stop or period mark at the end. The correct version would be Professor Bashir wrote the future of artificial intelligence. He has become well known as a result. Now in this, the future of artificial intelligence, which is the name of a book or article, is in inverted commas. It is clear that this is a title of something in inverted commas. After that there is a semicolon and then there is the rest of the sentence. One of the misconceptions about punctuation and language use in general is that there are a thousand rules and ten thousand exceptions. This is not exactly accurate. There are some rules and there are of course some exemptions to those rules as well. But there are not enough exemptions or there are not so many rules that you cannot learn them and that you cannot remember them. The important thing about the test sentence that we just saw about Professor Bashir is the treatment of quotation marks in relation to other marks of punctuation. You need to remember basic rules that periods or full stops and commas are always placed inside the quotation marks. Semicolons, colons, dashes, etc. are placed inside the quotation marks if they are part of the material that is being quoted. If semicolons, colons, dashes are in your text and they are part of the quoted material then they will be placed inside the quotation marks. But if they are not part of the quoted material then they will be outside the quotation marks. The inverted commas outside of them you will write the colon, semicolons and dashes when they are not part of the quoted part. Another kind of problem that writers face is readability problems. Readability is a buzzword with which most of us are familiar. Much has been said about it and there are numerous formulas which supposedly test readability. Readability is the likelihood that a project audience will be able to read and comprehend a piece of documentation. If you have written a documentation, if it is readable, it is likely that the reader will be able to understand it easily. This is called readability. Readability is an extremely important aspect of writing in any technical field but particularly in the computer industry because it is a technical field and if the technical document is not readable then it will not make any sense at all. There is one problem however. No one has agreed yet on a readability formula that works. There are many formulas and there are many things which we base on readability and we say that if the text is like this then it is readable and if it is like this then it is not readable but there has been no formula which we can test and we can see that the text is readable and the text is not readable and it needs to be improved. One however popular and widely used formula is we are going to look at and we are also going to look at its strengths and weaknesses. This formula is called the Gunnings Fog Index. It is a simple formula and it is aimed at teaching the audience on a grade scale which is supposedly based on their reading abilities. It is a simple formula. We can apply it on a text to grade the audience on what their reading ability is and according to that reading ability the text is so simple. What you need to do is select a part of the text which is approximately 100 words long to the nearest period. Take a sentence or a text which is of 100 words long or a paragraph or a section which is of 100 words long or approximately. But remember that introductions, leads or conclusions should be taken because introductions, leads and conclusions usually exhibit slightly different communication techniques and so if you take any of these then the accuracy of this test will change. So try to take sections which are not introductions, leads or conclusions. Try to take 100 words chunk from a discussion section of any text. Then count the number of sentences in the selected text determine the average length of the sentences by dividing the number of words in the text by the number of sentences. First look at the sentences and sentences in the text and then divide the number of words in the text by the number of sentences in the text. Then count the number of words which have three or more syllables. Write down three or more syllables but the letters which are starting with capital letters or their three syllables are like this because they have a prefix or suffix or they have two letters combined and one word is made don't count them but count the single words of three or more syllables. After this, the average length which you have taken put the number of words in this number add the number of the average sentence length to the number of the three syllable words that you counted. After this, multiply the number of words by 0.04. The result that you will get is the fog index. If you place this number on a scale of 1 to 20 you will be able to have the approximate reading level required to understand the text. So, if you get the number of words the level at which your reading ability should be so that you can understand that particular text. If the text is difficult, then your reading ability should be more than that. Now, another type of problem that writers face is that with writing style. One's writing style is also an editing phase problem. This is also a problem that you will deal with when you are editing. At the draft phase, writers should be concerned about communicating the subject matter and not worry about style. Style becomes secondary but at the editing polishing phase, style becomes a way of enhancing the communication and of making it easier to read. You don't need to worry about the style at the drafting stage. But when you come to polish your communication when you are editing it, then you will see the style. Then you will examine it critically according to the style. Because you can improve your communication and it will be easier to read the audience based on the readability of your writing style. Style is determined by sentence structure. Although you may not think so, sentence structure is simple and easy to understand. Many students feel that it is very difficult to understand the sentence structure. But it is not that difficult. Now I will show you four basic sentences. If you use these four different types of sentences in your writing, then your writing style can be very good. The first basic type of sentence is the sentence which follows the subject verb order. These are called subject verb sentences. For example, if you say the programmer quit. The programmer is the subject and quit is the verb. There are no other words. A very basic subject verb order is followed. In the second type of sentence you have the subject verb object order. This is the next level. This subject verb object is present. For example, the programmer kicked the terminal. The programmer is your subject. Kicked is the verb. The terminal is the object. Now let us read one more level. Subject, linking verb, complement sentence. There are three things in it. Subject, linking verb and complement. There are three things in it. Subject, verb, object. Subject is verb but linking verb or complement. For example, the programmer felt sick. Here again the subject is the programmer. The linking verb is felt and sick is the complement. The fourth type of basic sentence follows the order of subject, verb, indirect object, object. That is the order. Subject, verb, indirect object, object. For example, the programmer gave the engineer a headache. The programmer gave verb the engineer a headache. By itself this is a lot of variety which writers can use in creating a varied and interesting style. So if you keep these four types of sentences in mind you can achieve a lot of variety in your writing and achieve a better style. When we add to this basic structure different ways of modifying sentences the possibilities become enormous. These are the four basic structures. We can play with them but if we add more things and modify the sentences we get a lot of variety. There are three basic ways in which you can modify sentences. You can use left branching or you can you put the modifier before the main part of the sentence. For example if you say when we add to this basic structure ways to modify sentences comma in the obligations and your main sentences the possibilities come enormous. The possibilities is the subject and become is the linking verb and enormous is the complement. You take the subject linking verb complement line and test it to when we add to this basic structure another way of modifiers is right branching or after the main part of the sentence. Ishi sentence ko duwara dette hain, right branch karke. Writers should vary sentence structure, allowing readers the opportunity to pause, digest what they have read and go on. Ab is example mein writers subject hain, should vary verb hain, sentence structure objekt hain aur iske baad aapne jo hain modifier lagaadia, allowing readers the opportunity to pause, digest what they have read and go on. The third way to add modifiers is mid branching or in the middle of the main parts of the sentence. For example, writers if they are wise and experienced, vary sentence structures. Ab isme ab dekhain, writers subject hain. If they are wise and experienced aapne modifier lagaadia, vary verb hain, sentence structure objekt hain. To jo aapne modifier lagaadia waapne beach mein lagaadia hain. Once you realize that it is the variety of sentence structures and lengths that make your writing style interesting, you will be a successful writer. However, you need to be careful that you do not overuse one style only. Kisi ek style ko leke hi aap mat use karein baad baad, aap different styles ko, different writing techniques ko, different sentence varieties ko lije, taak hai aapka writing style jo wo yo interesting bane. There are many other ways of varying sentences, of varying your writing style, but these 7 options, the 4 different types of sentences and the 3 ways of adding modifiers can be used to create about 46 different type of sentences. To aap in saath se leke, different combinations enke karke aap 46 kisamke sentences baan aasaktain aur ye khasi variety hain aapke writing style mein add karne ke liye. Now when you are editing your work, you need to realize that it is the final step in the process of writing, whether you are writing a report or a paper about computer technology. And editing is what ensures a successful communication. Almost everyone who writes does some sort of editing, but many do not edit systematically with a specific goal in mind. Bohat baar hota, edit to hum sab kartein, jobi hum de cheez liye, usko zoroor ek baar dektain koi na koi usme changes kartein, lekin systematically edit, bohat kam log kartein. Bohat baar yo hota hai ke jo hum logon ke dhmaag mein idea hota hai ke achee report ya achee paper aisa hona chahiye wo humare ek gutt reaction se hota hai apna kam dekke, hum uske baare mein koi system follow nahi kar rahe hota hai. And while this process of editing with gutt reaction may work for very seasoned writers, writers who have been doing it for a long time, it is time consuming to develop the skills that are required to make accurate gutt reaction criticisms of one's own work.  Today we are going to look at some ways that writers can assess the quality of their work and the work of others without using just a gut feeling. Good editing divides the task of improving a document into a limited number of areas. Good editing means that you need to look at organizational logic, mechanical development of the topic, writer style and the quality of the manuscript. In chaat cheezon ko agar aap ek ek karke dekhe, tab aap achhi expert editing kar sakta hai apne reports ki. Let's have a look at organizational logic. The single most important issue in writing a report or a paper about computer technology for any audience is organizational logic. This is the first thing that a person needs to look for when editing a document. The ideas in a paper or a report should be interrelated. Jobi ideas hain, jobi logic aap istimal kar hain ek paper mein ya ek report mein wo ek bhusre ka saath interlinked honi chahiye, unki aapse mein relationships clear honi chahiye, jo organization hain wo clear honi chahiye. To jab aap ek paper ko edit karne baith hain, toh sab se pehle aap uski organization ko dekhe ki uski organization jo hain wo koi logical order follow kar rahi hai ya nahi. The information should form a sequence which should appear predictable to readers or even inevitable. Readers ko patte wey yandaza hona chahiye ki aap agla section jo hain wo kya kis cheez ko deal karega. Aur yeh cheez hain, yandaza jo hain wo, jo peechhe wo par raha hain, uski se hona chahiye. Ani text pistra honi chahiye ki unko agle sections ka andaza honi chahiye ki ab yeh logically yeh cheez follow karegi. A topic or an idea should anticipate topics and ideas which follow it. They should be no surprises in a document. They should be no areas of confusion which the readers have to puzzle out for themselves. Har cheez jo hain wo clear honi chahiye, koi cheez achanak se introduce nahi honi chahiye ek paper ki andar. The other thing that you look for is the mechanical development of the topic. How the writer develops the topic goes hand in hand with organizational logic. If the ideas are arranged in a logical order, the development of the topic becomes fairly easy. So, when editing a paper, keep in mind its effectivity. You may have to rewrite some portions to make those portions more effective. You need to examine the paragraphs individually. Each paragraph should begin with a topic sentence, which gives the reader an idea of what the topic of the paragraph is and how it relates to the overall topic of the document. Jaisikya hum ne pehle bhi baat ki thi ki jo aapka topic sentences hain wo aapke main purpose statement ke saath ko relate karne chahiye. To isliye jab editing ke wak ab apne sarah topic sentences ko bhat gaur se dekhye. Aur yeh dekhyein ke jo topics hain kya wo main ideas se relate karne hain ya nahi. Aur peh rhiye dekhyein ke jo topic sentences ke niche information aapne paragraph ke andar likhi hai wo us topic sentence ke saath korespond kar rahi hai ya nahi kar rahi. So and also remember that the paragraph should develop that topic and that topic only. Ek paragraph me koi aur cheez nahi introduce ho nahi chahiye jo cheez hain wo us paragraph ke topic sentence jean cheez wo se deal kar rahi hai wo us paragraph me sarah unhi cheez wo ka zikar ho nahi chahiye, koi nahi cheez hain nahi introduce ho nahi chahiye. Also you need to see if there is transition between paragraphs, even between sentences. Transition is what links the ideas together. Aapne dekh nahi ke aapke paragraphs me aapke sentences me aapas me koi aise alfaaz hain jo unko ek dosa ke saath link kar rahi ya nahi. Agar transitional devices nahi hai to phir padne wale ko connections banana muskil laginge agar transitional devices hain to wo connections asaan ho jayenge. Transition can be accomplished in three ways. The writer might repeat an important word into adjoining paragraphs or sentences, koi word ya phrase jo ke zaroori hai usko dobarah repeat kiya jayi, agle sentence me ya kuch sentences baad ya agle paragraph me, pishale paragraph se ya pishale sentence se link dekhane ke liye. Or the structure of the paper can accomplish transition, jistana aapne paper ko structure kiya waha hai wo bhi aapki transition ko help krta hain, agar jo cheez hain, logically ek ke baad dosri cheez aaye to wo bhi transition hoti, agar cheez hoon ki aapas me, jo ideas ke aapas me logic nahi ho to wo transition clear nahi hoti, lakin agar logic hoto padne wale ko andaza ho jata ki aap logically ye iss cheez ka zikar hoega. And the third thing would be the transitional words and phrases used to establish links between ideas in an obvious way. The use of words such as finally, firstly, secondly, however etcetera are transitional words that we use to show the relationships, to show the ideas place in a paper. Also another aspect of looking at the mechanical development of the topic is that you need to examine the ending of the report of the paper. Is the ending written with an obvious purpose in mind? Abhidak to humne dekhah ke jo discussion thi usko humne dekhah ke uske jo topics hain wo main ideas se relate kare hain yaan nahi kare hain, transitions hain yaan nahi hain, topic sentences aur paragraphs ek dosa se match kare hain yaan nahi kare hain. Aapne ending ko bhi dekhna hain, ke ending jo hain wo main purpose ke saath match kare hain yaan nahi kare hain aur uske ending ka jo purpose hain wo kya hain. Also you need to see, will the ending leave the reader with a sense of fullness and completion? Will it leave the reader with a sense that you have satisfied their needs? Agar wo ending padke reader ko lage ke bus, yehi baat thi aage kya hain, toh phir jo reader hain usko aap confuse jo rahin hain, kuch completion ki feeling unko nahi mil rahin. Lekin agar aapki ending asi hain ke wo aapke main purpose ko round up kar rahin hain, toh phir aapki reader ko jo hain wo ek completeness aur fullness ki feeling hogi end mein. And finally, check the punctuation throughout the document. The punctuation should reflect the logical organization and the interrelationship of ideas throughout the document. It should be accurate and correct by presently accepted standards. If you do not know what currently accepted standards are for punctuation, buy a good handbook or a grammar book which tells you about punctuation because that will be a wise investment. All you need to do is just refer to it if you are not sure. Even if you have a good idea as to what society thinks is correct punctuation, get a handbook so that you can refer to it easily whenever you are unsure. Now coming to writer's style. Style is the writer's voice coming through the words and sentences to communicate directly to the readers. Style is invariably structure. How you arrange words and sentences in patterns which are natural sounding to you. Written style is a bit more formal than normal conversation, it is a bit more measured and more planned. When we are speaking, we do not plan that much but when we are writing, we plan a lot and once we write it, we cut it and write it again. We plan a lot and practice a lot. Conversation is more natural, it is more impromptu, there is very little planning. So, that is what is expected of it as well but with writing because we know that the writer has time to plan, the writer should have time to plan, the reader is also expecting a different style and a different type of style from the writing. In conversation we establish clarity by observing visual and oral clues from the other person as to whether we are being understood or not. When we are speaking we can see what we are talking to the reader or listen to it. We can establish whether we are understanding what we are saying or not. But when we are writing, we cannot see our audience, the readers. So, we have to first make an estimate whether we are understanding what we are writing or not. So, that is why we need to ensure that the paragraphs and sentences that we are writing will actually carry our thoughts to them effectively. We also need to keep in mind and question if the style conveys the effect that we intend to get across to the reader. If you wish to sell an idea or a product, for example, your style must be persuasive. If you wish to convey information only such as in a report to seniors, then this style should appear to be passively objective. So, keeping in mind the purpose of your documentation, you need to vary your style. Also you need to see if the style is monotonous or not. If the sentences are of nearly the same length and same structure, the style will be monotonous and boring. The last thing that a writer needs to examine when editing a document is the quality of the manuscript. A manuscript should be visually attractive. This means that it should not only be orderly, there should be obvious divisions and subdivisions in it as well. Manuscript should invite readership. The reader should look at the manuscript and the paper to see if it should be attractive. Have you ever seen a report or paper which has writing crowded on it out to the edges from the top to the bottom or side to side? Such a manuscript looks hard to read. But if there are breaks and pauses in it, the formatting will be as such that it looks easy to read. Then you will read the book more easily and it will be more attractive. The typing also should be clear. So, if you are reading the book, then you will be able to read the book more easily and it will be attractive. The typing also should be clear in a manuscript and the production should not be sloppy. Also, a report or paper must be sufficiently detailed and only the writer knows how much detail is sufficient. So, keep in mind the needs and add detail according to that need. There should be enough detail to satisfy the projected needs of the reader. If the writer has paid attention to logical organization and development of the topic, the document will be detailed and as short as it has to be. If the writer knows that the logical organization is fine and the topics I have developed are fine, then it cannot be that detail is given in the detail of the topic. Then there will be detail, manuscript or short. After this, once you have looked at the manuscript and the quality of the manuscript, then you need to proofread the manuscript as well. Proofreading is not the same as editing. You have to use the judgment in editing. You have to see what changes we have to make in sentences, structure, organization. Proofreading is just a quick checking for errors. You will do proofreading quickly. You will only see if there are any mistakes. You have to use your judgment in editing to make changes. You only have to make mistakes in proofreading. With this, we come to the end of today's lecture in which we learnt about the different writing problems that people face. We looked at writer's block and looked at the causes of writer's block, which could be lack of a well-defined purpose, poorly analyzed structure, lack of confidence, lack of information. We looked at organizational problems, punctuation problems, readability problems and problems with writing style, which we discussed could be due to lack of organizational logic or poor mechanical development of the topic or poor writer's style or poor quality of the manuscript. We also looked at how to correct all these problems. If you have any problems when you are writing, try to keep these things in mind, see how you can apply them to your writing and how you can effectively improve your writing. Until next time, Allah Hafiz.


Americans guest best Bollywood movies for the beginners from readers digest Canada. Well, it's Canada So Akshay is gonna be in five at the top ten Kuch kuch hotahai and DDLJ. Kuch kuch hotahai is in the sixth slot Okay, DDLJ is in the five slot. Okay, K3G. No, Om Shanti Om No, Shole. Yes, that is on there. Two slot. Mother India. No, Don No Oglia Zom. Yes. Okay, that's in the one slot. There's one in the four slot that is IJAAZAT from 1987 Oh, Amarok Baranthony. No, that wouldn't be on there. Hadosan.  No, no, you enjoyed it. I did. Yeah. Yeah enjoyed Amir Khan. It also has siphon. Delta. Yeah, there. Yeah, that's in the seven slot as RK Phone in the nine slot. You might include it. I wouldn't did they really include devdas rock and roll Yeah, baby


Going on everyone Sam here with late sports car driven 23 moments best baseball hobby 8 box case number 25 picker team style Names and teams a sham's Orioles Adam M. Guardians Alan our twins Andrew L. Royals Blake M. Pirates Shipe Giants Angels Cameron G at White Sox fur Han a reds Gabriel C Rangers Glen K. Cardinals Jimmy H. Phillies Joshua W. Red Sox Justin E. Reanks Logan H. Braves Lynn F athletics Patrick N with the Astros Bobby our Cubs Russell G. Brewer Scott W. Tiger Scott F Dodgers Sean M. Rocky Shane with the Padres Sean P. Mariners Timothy M. Reyes Nationals Siobhan HD backs Vaughn with the Marlins and William T. With the Mets. We're gonna do guess the Superfractor everybody 30 seconds Guesses are open guess somebody in the checklist if we hit a Superfractor of them you will get break credits So guesses are open and 30 seconds start now. Good luck everybody Guesses are open get them in get them in get them in land with the Braves in the next one. Thank you, buddy That is Cameron G with the Cardinals in the next one. Thank you as well, buddy three two and one Guesses are closed You can get Josh you in there too. All right. Good luck here everybody. Let's do it Thanks for selling this one out Again, we are giving away and the PSA 10 LED a lot of crews 2023 tops now rookie It was Jesus.  All right. Good luck here everybody See something huge from out of this that is a shell act of how purple yord on to 250 white Langford Well to go number 26 guys well to go in 26. Everybody teams are on sale and TC black were giving away a card as well Davidson Gutierrez Refractor fold out meant guess out and every time until now so James outman super incoming real real Yoshida and Mike Trout Honestly, it's not a bad idea to stick with the one guy. You keep guessing. Yeah, true Just blindly going with random names Spencer Jones base auto Volpe blue Jeremy Pena to 150 and Pete Alonzo Gonna be a little behind going in the next one But we'll pretty much as long as it sells out be able to get right into it make up some time on this MTC black I'll be selling out the last breaks of the day, which are Bowman Chrome University hobby 12k 12 box case PYT's on gold lava to 75 Jackson Shuri Oh and a green auto price Eldridge to 99 there you go. Shipe. Congrats on that one, buddy And gunner I know jumbo is playing bebop. There's Jose Ramirez him of Drew Jones congrats on that one diamond backs very nice him Vaughn and are not redemption. I like that. Oh that I know what it is Vargas So it was a good thing shellacked autograph variation of Max Clark There he is congrats on that one going to the Tigers Very nice get that into a mag for you Tigers I think it's only one of two guys that it could be on a redemption Clark for sure and then I think it's Francisco Alvarez Alvarez now would make sense Korea Corbin Carroll and Colin Howe. I think the family trees are yeah Because that'll be the 250 Maxwell Clark. Yeah, him's basically like a case hit. I would say Which is kind of nice. You usually get about one of them for a case Josh young she won 99 very well couldn't be too They saw to Michael Arroyo for the Mariners one of the better player or one of the better teams on this checklist It's gonna be the Seattle Mariners for sure There's gonna be a real real of my aya and Louisa Ria Brando Real real your engine Vargas mini diamonds Perez and Lindor a Blue randed asus to 150 going to shape with the angels this time. Very nice. Congrats, buddy. And Machado Machado James Outman a mini diamonds 299 gave Gonzales and a Brian Rock. Yeah, Gunner Henderson Aaron judge Purple Chris Bryant to 250 base auto chase the water for it the Guardians nice one there Jeremy T with a Star Wars black spot nice one there Oswald Hey, Justin Crawford and Yuri Perez Same thing gold. Yeah, that's fine. Drew Jones and Jay Ram Gold lava auto Lazaro Montez the 75 nice one there Mariners up play Take a Montez for sure Adley refractor Francisco Alvarez and Corbin Carol Paul Skeen shellac guanipa Blue auto Dylan head to 150. There you go Shane nice one there, buddy Last team taking the Draze that is Yuri Perez and Tommy Troy Where jumbo goes jumbo gone Oscar Colas green is to 99 Colson Montgomery and Chris the end of the caro First in the caro They saw to the over Pacuero nice one there for it the good ol pirates and jazz chism Shohei Celestine and Riley green Jesse with Iowa State's in Seven and eight. Thank you, buddy. And Christopher C with the Guardians and Pirates and TC black very nice I'll caught up playing bebop. Gotcha. That makes sense Do you ever watch Donnie streams? Sometimes you know the game lethal company. Yes, that is Hector Rodriguez. I played with him like once or twice So for some reason Sean just hates that game. I don't know why and he calls it bebop for some reasons That's why there's Justin Crawford whenever we're talking about he's playing bebop. That's always You're asking the questions I can't answer Fortunately with that one Tyler Freeman and he killed so far purple to 250 Corbin Carol Niko Puyaca Grego base auto for the Phillies and Shohei James Wood and Jordan Walker Ten to go in twenty-six and to go in twenty-six everybody ten to go in twenty-six again Give it away an LED lacrosse in that one Down when a green canard Elgato to 99 for the inks Congrats on that the inks and base Caleb picking up the Padres and Mariners and Douglas pick up the Rangers in TC black as well So that's at like 12 to go as well And then we'll have to get our Bowman Chrome University sold out Michael Harris and round of Coonia You know purple to 250 is a Francisco Alvarez Get Iowa State since Now that's smart honestly JC base auto Jacob Reimer and Hatties Kevin arrow, I think Caitlyn Clarks, Iowa though. Just so you know JC But Omaha Billy is Iowa State, so they're still good like that's still a pretty good chase, but yeah Caitlyn Clark is Iowa shellac of Alvarez Yeah, Clark is at Iowa That is a Javier Osario base auto for the Tigers and Raj Garia That is a wave of Soto and Gabe Gonzalez Hoglia and Asturia Ruiz a lava Gunner Anderson to 50 for the Orioles I just won there on the real to real and base auto Kenny Gomez The Astro this pal world's gonna catch a lot of hype Adley-Ruchman, I agree with that Colosson James up. It's already the number one most paid stream game steam game Already already.  Yeah, of course. I watch them gameplay of it. Have you seen the Pokemon Arceus? Yeah, I have that game for the switch. Yeah, it's literally that same base and base hybrid survival Through is gold Colin howke want a 50 that's cool one there. That's that's that's always Sure That's too well and that's a lot of recent products The real Jones Killian to 299 Spencer Jones and Logan will poppy They saw to Ethan Salas. There you go Shane nice one there buddy for the Draze last team taken Yeah, not bad at all right there. That's still just that's just the first mini box of it, too Cheerio and Matt Shaw Salas and a half in there Mini diamonds Valera the astral pro ejections refractor Braylor Guerrero nice one there for the Ways wave at the rushman rookie and Spencer Jones Kovar and Colson Montgomery Gabby Moreno to 199 Davies and a Los Santos base auto Wonder what Sean would feel about playing power roles. He would call that bebop for sure tomorrow Johnson and college career He would call you a baby What about when your little guy hopped in the head and starts takes out is like 9mm starts shooting up everybody to defend you Figure out how we got bebop me because of noise it makes I think it's cuz we say you know how we call each other Bots, and it's like a bebop. Oh, yeah, I just think that's a derivative of that That is a Ethan Salas to 25 there we go Shane Congrats, buddy. Six five a 25 We'll send an empty box and wrapper because of the ink on the back, but that's an awesome card man Grats on that buddy. Oh, yeah Get that into a mag grab Shane's there prep 80 to 75 gold lava So to Mario Shedrick Martinez for the lawyers and face to how to go to the Padres through Jones and so Audrey's box. Yes. I know the lines just signed Zach Hertz that dude's trying to waltz into a ring For sure There a guy with the pirates in 26. Thank you, buddy Jonathan with a random team spots in the light Mixers we're down to nine to go. I want to say nine to go everybody nine to go Cubs guardians angels brewers twins Mets a's Giants blue jays. Yeah, so good squad still on the board plus We're giving away an LED a lot cruise plus we're doing the super fracker bounty as well So Monday madness we got going on today everybody. I just had to get that those tops now at least man They're pretty sweet Jones really Guerrero base auto for the race. It's great one for the PC Especially everyone out there That is a Jacob Wilson. Yeah, I guess that's true. Actually, that's not a bad point, honestly I think a big thing too is there they're bad their second time. I got a forearm injury that right he injured his forearm It's a 299 Abrams and Matt Olson Real to real to 150 is there need to valve as congrats Cubs nice one there very solid nothing with a another mixer spot Maybe I had a good good Omaha That is Volpe and base. Yeah, Omaha is a good chase man. Omaha is one of the better better players in that product, too So you should be should be rocking and rolling on that for sure. Jesse Everybody just nine to go on the next one. We're giving away a LED lock cruise as well Lingford hundred brown 299 CJ Abrams base auto journey to Valdez. One of the Cubs congrats Cubs and Xavier Isaac wave of Paraza and Enrique Bradfield proposed at the 50 Hardline Yosueh de Paula a little base in there as well That is a base auto Henry Bolts going to the A's congrats on that Oakland Oakland and Marcello And Marcello a gunner Henderson green mini diamonds Nolan Gorman to 99 and Josh young Where is this super? I know I'm feeling we'll see one in this box Refractor Otto Gabe Gonzalez going to the Mariners top 100 guy Real real gunner mini diamonds 299 Bryce Harper and Gavin Marino Is a real to real Bryce Harper mini-ondons Crawford and rookie bets base auto junior Kevin arrow for the rays nice one there and Bradley cross and Jackson Holley last box the break. Good luck here buddy Brennan with the twins and brew crew in TC black. Thank you, buddy. Very nice TC black is disappearing as well Now we just got to our last break of the day Bowman Chrome University hobby available as well Nine left to go in number 26 for Bowman to go everybody Cubs Guardians Angels Brewers Twins Mets A's Giants blue J Daniel Montecino. Yeah, we just got a card show vlog posted to YouTube Blue Ethan Salas to 150 That's also true. Shipe. Also very true. Shipe. There are some Lazarus Montes base auto Caden Wallace for the Royals and Shale Angers Casey Schmidt and Kodai Senga So the sub there Felix To 199 is one so to San Bessio for the Orioles base on a little Adley Rushman and Chris Bryant Corbin Carroll and Michael Harris red lava auto Alfredo Duno two of five go into the Reds congrats on that color match red for the Reds That's awesome, man That'll go into a mag. That's kind of nasty and Zack Neto Oh, that is sweet man. That is pretty Masterpieces Jordan Walker and Jay Rod Let me just think got a bunch more orders coming in because we're see with some random spots in Star Wars tonight John with a couple of mix random team spots marked with the twins in 26 Joshua with the blue J's in 26 William T with the Padres and TC black and William T with the Mets in 26. Thank you all appreciate that guys. That is awesome Yeah, that's a sweet one man Alright quick recap here everybody 75 Cheerio and baby to 50 Yep, is gonna Henderson base auto Samuel Bessio Hayden Wallace junior Kevin arrow Henry Bolts journey to Valdez Braylor Guerrero Myro Shandrick Martinez. That is a Davison De Los Santos Ethan Salas Kenny Gomez Javier Osario Jacob Reimer Nica Puyoca Grego Leo McGuero chase the lotter Michael Arroyo Spencer Jones Davidson Gutierrez him of Drew Jones Hector Rodriguez Braylor Guerrero Gabe Gonzalez and Daniel Montecino numbered autos now to 150 Dernichie Valdez Dylan head Randy de Jesus to 99 Canada Delgado Bryce eldritch to 75 Las romanzas 50 Colin Hout got a max Clark shell act variation auto a Ethan Salas to 25 5 of 25 and then a red lava Alfredo do know to five Break everybody. Thanks again for the film coming up next. He is gonna be number 26


Alright you guys, we're gonna do something today that I've been wanting to do for a while. What we're gonna do is I'm gonna blindfold myself here and I'm gonna show you just how easy it is. My eyes are open under here and I can't see anything. This is super tight. I'm gonna show you just how easy it is to make my original chicken thighs using Danos. This is how easy it is. The recipe is on the bottle you guys. The recipe is on the bottle. Okay, so first off you got bone and skin on chicken, right? These are chicken thighs.  Just like that, you wanna open them up. There we go, I think we got them all opened up and so now I'm gonna take this hand off here. We're gonna do a little bit of oil, okay? I think I did good. I don't know. Alright, so you do a little oil, just a little bit, that's all you need. Then you use the Danos. So let me get another glove back on here. Alright, so you get your Danos, you're gonna hit it with a pop pop, okay? And probably just two or three on each side. Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, all you gotta do, right? Pat that in. Now, you take them, get it to a little 13 by nine, lay it in there, put a little skin flap out, lay it in there, skin flap out, lay it in there, skin flap out. I think, yes, skin flap here, skin flap out. Alright, last step, you guys, I'm showing you how easy it is. Seriously, Danos, low sodium, no sugar, no chemicals, you can use more of it, more flavor. So we're gonna hit it with the oil. It may have been a lot, I don't know. I can feel that it got on there. Alright, so now, I'm going with a pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. I'm thinking, Mike, is that nice and coated? Yes. It is, okay, awesome. Alright, so this is how easy it is, y'all. Danos, low sodium, just hit the pop, pop, baby. That's not a whole lot of salt on there. It's real flavor. Now, we just go into our oven at 350 degrees for one and a half hours, just like it says on the label. Alright, let's see if I can find the oven. There we go, 350 degrees.  Pop, pop, pop, go, go in, go in, go in. There you go. There we go. Look, you guys, the results really are that easy. At 350, the chicken falls apart. It's still juicy.  That's the good ones getting yum, yum, get you some.


Everybody forest here ripping 2022 immaculate baseball Hobby eight box full case number 22 random divisions for the results You can always find these at latent sports cards calm make sure Jordan everybody. Good luck. Go going to the AL East Jersey car Brandon Lowe Number 51 of 99 AL West that relic Mike trout for a 15 RPA AL East Connor seabold 95 out of 99 Redemption Mackenzie Gore immaculate signatures. I would think he's a Padre in this But I don't want to assume so we check Yep, Mackenzie Gore Padres Padres Mackenzie Gore redemption maculate signatures Get Yankees RPA Luis heel 72 81 AL East And patch auto NL central Aristides Aquino 25 out of 25 I Of course we are NL East Jersey card Jean Segura 19 out of 25 Anybody that wants to I'll buy out here. Let's go. I'll do it Jersey card NL West clean Kershaw 40 of 49 Rockies on the sweet acetate horizontal RPA Ryan delayed 12 out of 25 NL West The delayed acetate with the E from Rockies, maybe I Don't know what else it would be Redemption a all central rookie patch auto red Joe Ryan the twins rookie pitcher there Joe Ryan I Got two first names RPA with a sick Phillies patch NL East mad veerling one of ten Joe Ryan. Yes. Hey, I'll central Nice veerling and a horizontal Lars newt bar one of ten RPA. That's awesome great partial logo patch there NL central I Was a good box So just some football breaks left for tonight everybody and limited space for personals So let's get those certified in origins random team style mixers filled up and the random divisions origins full case 16 boxes and Again limited space for personals tonight or resume breaking Sunday daytime Jersey card NL East Aaron Nola 42 of 99 Bat relic NL West Freddy Freeman 37 of 49 NL East RPA 6 of 76 Patrick Mazzica NL East Redemption a L West immaculate signature is Alex Bregman a L West rookie patch auto a L East Louise heel 23 of 81 and With the buccaneer logo RPA two of ten Rowan Z Contreras NL central Love that old logo. Look at this thing. That's a massive dub right there one of one fielding glove embroidered Kyle Muller NL East a literal massive dub There you go Shane congrats on that one that is awesome Massive dub is literally it's literally massive too. Yeah, man. That is so cool fielding glove relic Printing plate relic. That's Elston Howard a L East one of one game used Jersey Oh, man great box so far here RPA Ruby John Heasley a L central 37 to 49 a L East jumbo relic auto Clark Schmidt 53 of 99 There's a name NL East auto Bobby a bray you 18 of 25 For like from like oh fives like oh nine. He was so good 30 he went 30 30 and what oh three it's like he wrote there Is that what he wrote and a Maglia Ordonez auto a L central 49 to 49 Maglia Ordonez legends right there. How was happening Steve? Steve on YouTube today I Don't wonder he was crazy. Was that the Miguel to Hada one am I mixing them up a L East triple patch cars chain McLean hand 8 of 25 Rakes been good so far Jersey card Maglia Ordonez a L central 32 of 99 Made what I think is a game-saving catch last night AL West rookie triple patch auto two of ten Chas McCormick The swoosh in the middle there Incredible catch against the wall and center field last night would have been a triple with like what won out and saved the game I think triple pat triple Jersey rookie auto Kevin Smith AL East 68 of 99 and NL East auto Jose Devers 13 of 25 signatures AL East Adley Rushman 32 of 49 Sick Adley a good break man And rookie Jersey Thomas Shippuki 20 or 74 out of 99 NL East Yeah, I would love for the Phillies to win believe me You know what the actuals win dusty wins and I can't I can't I can't hate that Can't do it Would he be the first African-American manager to win a World Series others did it. Oh Yeah, Dave Roberts. Yeah, is he the first? The blue the blue Jays the blue Jays manager in the nights. I think was I think Gaston not sure don't know my history on that Not gonna not gotta pretend to know my history on But he is the winningest manager in the history without a world series. So he's do bat relic Yes money Grandal AL central 26 of 49 Okay, so yeah, that's that's correct as MJ says it to so that's Gaston Patch Magalie, Ordonia's 8 of 10. This is the Magalie, Ordonia's case a L central Jackson co are a L central Jersey auto 4 of 10 Cito Gaston Prospect patch auto a von Herrera 31 of 47. Yeah, the Joe Carter walk off That's that's the best feeling in the world. Right. It's got to be the best thing you can ever do in baseball Dream about that as a child man. AL East rookie button relic out of seven of eight Josh Lowe Joshua next Maybe maybe you fit in 180. I don't know green RPA and L central one. Yeah, Paz That is sick. Look at that one, dude. That is like some commemorative patch There we go. NL central all magged out one for you in a partial laundry tag one of eight Louis Lucas G. Leto AL central also Tramansini would have a world series Christian Vazquez one another one Can't hate it. Can't hate it rookie three-color patch Joe Ryan 44 of 49 AL central NLS patch card Buster Posey 10 of 10 AL East RPA Jaren Durand 15 out of 40 three-colored Durand AL East Jersey auto Isaac Perreter 17 of 99 Prospect patch auto AL East Alex Benelos 22 of 99 a Whitmerefield auto 13 out of 25 AL central and Rookie jumbo Jersey Mike Bowman 52 of 99 AL East. All right. One more do Blake had the easiest release day for top-loading ever He was just he was here being being a hype guy hype a man print out a sheet every 20 minutes Just scream Dual Jersey Tony Gonsolin NLS 64 of 99. It's been pretty memorable. I think it's been good Rookie patch Josh low AL East 19 of 49 a game seven would be awesome though. When's the last time we had a World Series game seven? It's been a little while hasn't it was the last one Trying to think wasn't last year wasn't you before that when you're for that It's been a while Guy rookie patch auto Padres recent error one of 99 The NL West I Think it was the Cubs World Series. Was it 19? No, I don't think didn't that Streau's go seven games For some reason I remember that being a six game series, but you're probably right Matt You're I mean you're the one saying it rookie triple relic auto a hill Lopez NL central That also feels like a lot longer ago than three years by the way 2019 RPA Rodolfo Castro NL central 12 is 64 The last one I remember though is the Cubs one. That's the last one. I know for sure in my mind. You know what I mean and O'Neill cruise immaculate black prime redemption that'll be to 10 for the NL central Nice hit NL central Daughters Astros was that 2017 that was seven games. Okay, so was 16 that yeah the 17 one was as well He's 18 wasn't the last three haven't been or the last Yes, 2021 have we're not Go NL central we have time it does feel like a lot longer go. I think that I think that's the issue here Relics Josh Lowe. I'm just gonna call out players guys Tony Gonsolin Mike Balman Buster Posey Joe Ryan Lucas G. Leto Maglia Ordonez Yosemite Grandal Thomas to pokey Maglia Ordonez again Shane McClanahan Elston Howard printing plate relic one of one The Yankees AL East Freddie Freeman Aaron Nola Clayton Kershaw Jean Segora Mike trout Brandon Lowe Autos now again, just gonna call it the player Redulfo Castro Alejo Lopez Rhys Nair with Merrifield Alex Benelis Isaac Perreter's Jaren Durand Josh Lowe Yvonne Herrera Jackson co are Adley Ruchman Kevin Smith Jose Devers McKenzie Gore on the redemption here Chasmic Cormac Maglia Ordonez Otto Bobby a bray you Clark Schmidt John Heasley Roanzee Contreras Luis Hill Alex Bregman Patrick Mazzica Lars Newt Bar Matt Veerling Joe Ryan Redemption Ryan Vellade Air State Ezequino Luis Hill Connor Siebold Green RPA one yep has five of five for the NL central a one-of-one jumbo fielding glove and broider the Wilson patch NL East and NL central redemption that is a black prime O'Neill cruise NL central and that's gonna do it. Thanks everybody We are on to basketball now


All right, so thanks, Ron. So I want to start by just putting up the statement of the decisional Diffie-Hellman assumption. So it says that we fix some cyclic group g of order q. Little g is going to be a generator of the group. And the assumption states that for uniformly random x, y, and z from zq, that no computationally bounded adversary can distinguish between seeing g to the x, g to the y, and g to the xy, and seeing g to the x, g to the y, and g to the z. So it seems fairly straightforward. But there's a fairly subtle point here that's a little bit ambiguous, which is when exactly is this generator g chosen? All right, so if you have the opinion that this generator g is just a fixed part of the group description, and it's chosen independently of the DDH instance, well, then you're in good company. This is also the definition of DDH in a number of foundational cryptographic works. But you might also hold a different opinion. You might think that in DDH, the generator should be chosen as part of the instance. It should be a random generator chosen along with the random x, y, and z. And if you think this, well, then you're also in good company. This is the definition of DDH in all of these foundational works. Okay, so I'm gonna call this first thing a fixed DDH. So just DDH with a fixed generator. And the second thing, random DDH, which is DDH with a random generator. And a natural question is, well, both of these assumptions are called the DDH assumption. So are they equivalent? And you can probably guess from the fact that the talk is not over, that they're not equivalent. And this is observed by Shupe in 99 and also discussed in some other works. Well, Shupe pointed out that this fixed and random DDH assumptions are not known to be equivalent. We don't know of a, it didn't give a black box separation or anything, but at least pointed out that there's no trivial equivalence between the two assumptions. So this is a slightly concerning state of affairs. And you can also ask, well, do we have similar issues for discrete log or CDH? Okay, and if you think about it for a little bit, you'll realize that we don't really have these issues for discrete log and CDH. This seems to be uniquely a DDH problem. Okay, so we can ask, when are these fixed and generator versions of these assumptions equivalent for discrete log and CDH? There are folklore reductions showing that the fixed and random generator versions are equivalent, but for DDH, we didn't know either equivalence or separations. Okay, so before I go on, I just wanna note that an adversary for a random generator version of a problem always implies an adversary for a fixed generator version of the problem. Okay, and this is simply because if you have a fixed generator instance, you can raise every single one of your group elements to a random power and feed that to your random generator adversary. Okay, so the random generator problem is always, at least as hard as a fixed generator problem. Okay, so just as a warm up, here's the equivalence between random generator discrete log and fixed generator discrete log. It's very easy. You're given the random generator discrete log instance, so g to the r is gonna be my random generator and I'm given g to the rx. My task is to find x. So what I can do if I have a fixed discrete log adversary is I run this adversary on g to the r. I run it again on g to the rx. Once I have r and rx, it's trivial to find x. Okay, so fairly straightforward. For CDH is another, there's an equivalence that's a little bit harder than the discrete log equivalence. I'm not gonna go through it, but I will point out that the folklore CDH equivalence actually requires knowing the totient of the group order. Okay, so if it's a prime order group, then just knowing the prime is good enough. But if it's a composite order grouping, you should know the factorization to make the CDH equivalence go through. So this motivates looking at this question in several different settings depending on what you know about the group order or its totient. So you can actually consider three different settings. The first setting is known prime order. This is the most common setting. You can also consider unknown prime order. And finally, you can consider known composite order but unknown factorization. Okay, and the simple discrete log equivalence goes through in all cases. But for CDH, the equivalence actually only holds the known prime order setting. And in all the remaining boxes, it's unclear if we have an equivalence or a separation between the fixed and random generator versions of these problems. Okay, so this is maybe the state of the art before this work. And so as a first result, maybe as a form of cryptographic housekeeping, we give black box separations between the fixed and random generator versions in all the remaining boxes where we didn't know equivalences. Okay, so I'm not gonna go into detail about how we actually do these black box separations, but they sort of go through in the way you would expect these black box separations to go through. Basically, you prove that in the generic group model, if you're equipped with an oracle that solves a fixed generator version of your problem, it's still hard for you to solve the random generator version of your problem. So in some cases, for the CDH separations, we need to make further computational assumptions for the black box separation to go through. But for DDH, our separations are unconditional. Okay, so this raises the question of, well, we have these black box separations and it might be possible now that you actually have concrete groups that realize these separations. And you can ask, well, what would happen if we had such groups? So as an observation, I'm calling it an observation because it's not actually terribly hard to figure this out, but if you have a group where fixed generator CDH is easy, the random generator CDH is hard, it turns out this implies something called a self-bilinear map. So this is a group equipped with a pairing E where the source groups and the target groups are all the same group. And self-bilinear maps are actually an incredibly powerful cryptographic objects and they're known to imply, for example, multi-party non-interactive key agreement, which is something that's only known from multi-bilinear maps or from obfuscation. So self-bilinear maps for this really powerful object, it's an open question to construct them. And it turns out that if you have a group where CDH is split so that fixed CDH is easy, but random CDH is hard, you can build from that a self-bilinear map. Okay, so how do we interpret this result? I don't want this to be, I don't want this to say that, well, the way that we should look for self-bilinear maps is to look for a group where CDH is split. Maybe the other way to interpret this, maybe the more plausible interpretation of this result, is really that on any group where we're comfortable making a CDH assumption, it would be really, really surprising if there were actually a split, that while there is a black box separation, it seems quite unlikely that fixed CDH will actually be easy, but random CDH be hard on any of the groups that we're comfortable assuming CDH on. But before I go on, I should mention that we have analogous results for the DDH setting. So, or similar sorts of results for DDH, we show that if a group has fixed DDH being easy, but random DDH being hard, this actually implies a simple black box construction of identity-based encryption. Okay, so for the rest of this talk, I'm sort of gonna change gears and look at a few other settings in which this fixed versus random distinction is particularly important. So, the first thing we're gonna look at is the fixed versus random distinction in the setting of generic pre-processing adversaries on group-based assumptions. Okay, so in pre-processing attacks, in particular on discrete log, we have attacks that work in in two phases. Okay, so first we have this online phase where an attacker is given computationally unbounded or a computationally unbounded attacker is given complete access to some group with some known fixed generator, little g. And in this offline phase, the attacker is trying to compute the most useful advice that will help it in the future to solve discrete log instances online. Okay, so it's gonna come up with this Aspet advice string and the online phase, now the attacker is gonna be computationally bounded, it'll have some time bound t. And this attacker is gonna be given fresh discrete log samples, so g, g to the x, with respect to that same fixed generator, g. And its goal is to find x. Okay, so this is a very popular setting in which to analyze generic attacks on discrete log because it mirrors the situations we encounter in real life where we only have a handful of cryptographic groups and we're often using the same generator over and over again. Okay, so it's known that for pre-processing attacks on discrete log that you can actually do fairly well when you have Aspet advice. So if you have a group of order n with Aspet advice and you have online time t, you can solve a fixed generator discrete log problem with probability st squared over n. So for comparison, if you don't have any advice, the best you can do is t squared over n. Okay, so this is your probability of solving discrete log given the resources s and t. So it turns out that this result is actually tight. So this is shown by Corrigan Gibbs and Kogan last year at Eurocrypt that a generic adversary does succeed with probability at most st squared over n. This is tied up to a pi logarithmic factors. But our observation in this work is that this doesn't fully resolve the complexity of solving discrete log problems. As in particular, this is only tight if you look at fixed generator discrete log. If you look at the random generator setting, the success probabilities change slightly. So why is that? Well, when you're given a random generator discrete log instance, you have two ways of solving it. One way of solving it is to use your fixed generator pre-processing attack, but then you have to run it twice. Remember that to solve a random generator discrete log problem given a fixed generator adversary, a fixed generator oracle, you have to run it twice. You run it on the generator and then you run it on the group element. So you can either solve two fixed generator discrete log instances, which then squares your success probability, or you can ignore the pre-processing advice entirely and just use the best algorithm that doesn't use pre-processing, which is the baby step, giant step algorithm, and that succeeds with the probability t squared over n. Okay, so in the fixed generator discrete log setting, your success probability is st squared over n, but in the random generator setting, this actually drops to this t squared over n plus s squared t to the fourth over n squared probability. And when this is your advantage, the st squared bound of CK18 is no longer tight. Okay, so in this work, what we do is we close this bound, we close this gap when we give a matching bound, showing that a generic adversary solves random generator discrete log with probability at most t squared over n plus s squared t to the fourth over n squared. I should mention that the techniques we use to prove this bound come from the pre-sampling techniques of Corettae, Dodas, and Grow that have been developed over the past two years. And in the paper, we have analogous tight bounds for the computational Tiffy-Hellman problem. And the takeaway from this is that, well, everything else being equal, pre-processing attacks don't do quite as well in the random generator setting. Okay, and maybe this is sort of intuitive because, well, pre-processing is really taking advantage of the fact that you're always gonna be solving these discrete log problems with respect to the same generator, and once you make that generator random, your success probability is gonna drop a little bit. Okay, so this is maybe spiritually a little bit similar to salting, right? Okay, so for the last part of this talk, I'm gonna shift gears again and look at a totally different setting where the fixed versus random generator distinction matters. And this is probably the setting where the distinction matters the most. Okay, so this is for assumptions over non-uniform exponents. Okay, so I should say what I mean, this is not really a common phrase, assumptions over non-uniform exponents. But if you think about CDH and DDH, right? All the secret exponents in these assumptions are uniformly random from ZQ. But sometimes we encounter assumptions in crypto that don't have this property. And in particular, this one assumption due to Canadi is DDH2. So this is exactly the same form as standard DDH, except now this exponent X can be chosen from an arbitrary well-spread distribution. Okay, so Y and Z are still chosen uniformly at random, but X, this assumption has to hold for X as long as it's drawn from any distribution that has super logarithmic entropy. Okay, so it's a very strong assumption. It's saying for any distribution you can come up with, we need this computational and distinguished ability to hold. And so why do we formulate this sort of nasty looking assumption? Well, it turns out that DDH2 implies obfuscation for point functions. Okay, so before I go on, let me just define what that is. Point function obfuscation. So point functions are functions that accept on exactly one point. So the CYX is a point function that has this hard-coded string Y. It accepts if its input is equal to Y, otherwise it rejects. And point function obfuscation, the goal is to give out an implementation of this program, of this function. But the implementation shouldn't leak Y. Okay, so you should be able to evaluate this point function on any X that you want and learn whether or not it matched Y. But the only way that you should actually be able to learn Y is if you happen to guess it yourself. So you can think of point function obfuscation as sort of a secure way to do password checking, for example. So it has a lot of interesting cryptographic applications. And it turns out that to achieve the strongest possible definitions of point function obfuscation, for those of you familiar, this is just worst case virtual black box obfuscation. We showed that actually you need really, really strong assumptions to build point function obfuscation. So in some sense, you do need these strong assumptions that quantify over all well-spread distributions. Okay, so for better or for worse, these assumptions are here to stay. So next I want to talk about this thing called non-malleable point function obfuscation. So this idea of non-malleable obfuscation was first proposed by Kanedi and Varia in 2008. But recently this has gotten some attention and in particular in last year's Eurocrypt, Kromer-Gotsky and Yoga have observed that, well Kanedi's original construction of point function obfuscation from DDH2 suffers from this malleability problem. Okay, so if I'm an adversary and I see an obfuscation CY, it's possible to actually mall this into an obfuscation that accepts on a related point. Okay, so CY accepts if your input's equal to Y, I can actually change that to an obfuscation that accepts on some related F of Y. Okay, I can't learn Y myself because of security to obfuscator, but I can mall the construction. And so the goal in Kromer-Gotsky and Yoga is to change the construction so that it's non-malleable. And in particular, they focus on the class of polynomial modeling functions. So to prove security, they formulate this new assumption called the strong-powered DDH assumption. It has this standard quantification over all well-spread distributions. And again, this is necessary to prove security of point function obfuscation. And the assumption states that as long as X is drawn from a well-spread distribution, then the following group elements are computationally indistinguishable from random group elements. So it's G to the X, G to the X squared, G to the X cubed, all the way up to G to the X to the K. And the assumption is that as long as X has enough entropy, then you can't distinguish between that and just random group elements. Okay, and so this assumption, it turns out, implies non-malleable point function obfuscation. So in this work, we take a closer look at this construction in particular, the strong-powered DDH assumption. And we make the following observation that this assumption is really, really sensitive to whether or not the generator is fixed or random. So in particular, if the generator is a fixed generator, the assumption's actually false and for a sort of silly reason. If the generator is false, then when we're quantifying over all well-spread distributions, we have to consider distributions that are gonna condition on the choice of G. Okay, so if a distribution can condition on the choice of G, you can just simply pick any X, you can randomly pick an X, such that G to the X begins with a zero. Okay, and then this is trivially distinguishable from a random group element, and you don't even need to use the higher powers. Right? So this assumption is false when the generator is fixed and when the generator is random, it's not obviously false. But the problem is that if you look closely at the KY18 construction, you'll realize that you actually have to use a fixed generator. If you try to switch to a random generator, an adversary can actually model it, and if you wanna put the random generator in a CRS, well, in the CRS setting, this result was already known. And so the goal here was to give a standard model construction of non-malleable point function obfuscation, but the underlying assumption can't hold if the generator is fixed. Okay, so we communicated this issue to KY18, and in response, they've updated their assumption, they have a totally qualitatively different assumption, and from that, they can get a construction of non-malleable point obfuscation. In this work, we took a slightly different approach. We gave our own assumption that suffices for non-malleable point obfuscation, and I'll give sort of a toy version of our assumption on this slide. The assumption just says that for any x drawn from a well-spread distribution, and for any a and r randomly sampled from zq, that you can't distinguish between a, just show this exponent a in the clear, and g raised to the ax plus x squared, and a in a random group element. And the point of designing an assumption of this form is that by giving this random a, as by injecting this random a, you defeat the ability to design a distribution on x that can make g to the ax plus x squared distinguishable from random. You can try to strip off this a, if you divide it out, the problem is that the x squared term is gonna have a one over a multiplying it, and this a was randomly chosen independently of you fixing the well-spread distribution. So it turns out this is sufficient for non-malleable point obfuscation, and when you introduce new assumptions, it's very important to justify them in the generic group model, right? So it's not clear whether or not we should trust these new assumptions, and maybe when you pose new assumptions that are very, very ad hoc, sort of the only way that you can inspire confidence is to show that no generic adversaries can break your assumption. Okay, so in particular we prove that our assumption holds in the generic group model, but we have to be really, really careful about the way that we prove security, because we don't wanna fall into the same trap that makes the previous version of this assumption false. So in particular, when we do the generic group model proof, you have to allow the distribution, the choice of the well-spread distribution, to be fixed after the generic group labelings are fixed. All right, so in the generic group model you have a representation or some bit string for every single group element, and you have to allow the distribution itself to see the truth table of the labeling function before you specify the distribution, okay? And if you don't allow this to happen, well then you can actually prove blatantly false assumptions hold in the generic group model, such as G to the entropic axis indistinguishable from a random group element. And so along the way of proving that our assumption holds in the generic group model, we looked at a whole bunch of other proofs in the literature that had justified these non-uniform assumptions before in the generic group model, and it turns out that all of the existing proofs of DDH2, so Kennedy's strong DDH assumption, have the same issue of the generic group labeling function being sampled independently of the well-spread distribution. And so while the conclusion of all these proofs is not false, that indeed DDH2 is hard in the generic group model, you could use these same proof strategies to prove blatantly false assumptions. So one of the contributions of our work is sort of pointing out this issue in generic group proofs whenever you have to deal with these assumptions that quantify over all well-spread distributions. And towards remedying this, we give a new generic group model proof that DDH2 holds against generic adversaries, and we make sure that the well-spread distribution is picked after the labeling is fixed. So that's it for my talk. Thanks for your attention. Thank you. Questions? Are you aware of any cryptanalysis of concrete groups with this assumption? Whether this is true for any concrete groups, the DDH2 assumption, or what you came up with in your work? Whether it's true? Yeah, yeah, for like a concrete group. Has there been any analysis of this assumption about concrete groups? I'm not aware of this. I mean, I guess you would be more aware of it than me. So I don't think there's any concrete group that is this assumption that was shown to be false where, you know, DDH is holds, right? As far as I know, maybe other people know. I was just curious, he said you prove a bound in the generic group model. I wasn't sure whether it was in Tropic DDH or in Tropic street log or whatever. It was in Tropic DDH, basically. Oh, so we prove two different assumptions holding a generic group model. So yeah, one of them is DDH2, and one is this new assumption that we had to formulate for. I was curious about the DDH2. What kind of concrete bound do you get? You get kind of what you would get. Actually, I'm just curious what kind of concrete bound you get and whether you know whether it's tight. Yeah, I don't know what top of my head. Can talk about that one though. Tell me please, Q is prime? Sorry? Q, Q is prime? Number? Q. Oh, oh, oh, so for, yeah, say it's prime here. Yeah, for this whole talk, assume that all the group orders are prime except for on the one slide when they weren't prime. Okay, let's thank the speaker again.


The impact of broadband obviously depends on the country and the economy. But broadly speaking, broadband is crucial to connecting people to the resources needed to improve their lively goals and to the world achieving the sustainable development goals. The goals for education, gender equality and infrastructure include bold targets for information and communication technology. The State of Broadband 2017 report outlines how broadband is already contributing to this and makes valuable recommendations for how to leverage broadband to increase this contribution into the future. The good news is that the State of Broadband 2017 report shows us that accessibility to broadband is increasing with more affordable prices worldwide. But there is still much work to be done by the end of 2017. The report forecasts that 3.9 billion people will still not be online and only 17% of people in least developing countries will be connected. Global actions need to be set up to bring digital access to these that need it most. The broadband commission remains committed to promoting the adoption of effective and inclusive broadband policies and practices in countries around the world with a view to achieving more inclusive and sustainable development by empowering individuals and society through the benefit of broadband. Our efforts will continue to focus on fully leveraging the huge potential of broadband technologies to drive new national SDG strategies in key areas including education, healthcare and environmental protection.