igraph0.7.0 write.graph as edgelist - igraph

I am using igraph0.7.0. I do not understand the node number of each edge:
g = graph.ring(3)
write.graph( g, format='edgelist', file='./temp.tsv' )
The result in './temp.tsv':
0 1
0 2
1 2
Each row should be the node number of an edge, why the number has been misused by 1?
I know in igraph0.6.x, node number starts from 0. But for igraph0.7.0 it starts from 1. Is this a bug?

No, this is not a bug. The edgelist format uses zero-based indexing even from R to be compatible with the Python interface and the C core, which also use zero-based indexing. (Otherwise an edge list saved from R would be loaded incorrectly when someone uses the Python interface or the C core directly).

Related

Octave eigs() function bugged?

Running Octave 6.3.0 for Windows. I need to get the smallest eigenvalue of some matrix.eigs(A,1,"sm") is supposed to do that, but I often get wrong results with singular matrices.
eigs(A) (which returns all the the first 6 eigenvalues/vectors) is correct (at least at the machine precision):
>> A = [[1 1 1];[1 1 1];[1 1 1]]
A =
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
>> [v lambda flag] = eigs(A)
v =
0.5774 -0.3094 -0.7556
0.5774 -0.4996 0.6458
0.5774 0.8091 0.1098
lambda =
Diagonal Matrix
3.0000e+00 0 0
0 -4.5198e-16 0
0 0 -1.5831e-17
flag = 0
But eigs(A,1,"sm") is not:
>> [v lambda flag] = eigs(A,1,"sm")
warning: eigs: 'A - sigma*B' is singular, indicating sigma is exactly an eigenvalue so convergence is not guaranteed
warning: called from
eigs at line 298 column 20
warning: matrix singular to machine precision
warning: called from
eigs at line 298 column 20
warning: matrix singular to machine precision
warning: called from
eigs at line 298 column 20
warning: matrix singular to machine precision
warning: called from
eigs at line 298 column 20
warning: matrix singular to machine precision
warning: called from
eigs at line 298 column 20
v =
-0.7554
0.2745
0.5950
lambda = 0.4322
flag = 0
Not only the returned eigenvalue is wrong, but the returned flag is zero, indicating that every went right in the function...
Is it a wrong usage of eigs() (but from the doc I can't see what is wrong) or a bug?
EDIT: if not a bug, at least a design issue... No problem either when requesting the 2 smallest values instead of the smallest value alone.
>> eigs(A,2,"sm")
ans =
-1.7700e-17
-5.8485e-16
EDIT 2: the eigs() function in Matlab online just runs fine and return the correct results (at the machine precision)
>> A=ones(3)
A =
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
>> [v lambda flag] = eigs(A,1,"smallestabs")
v =
-0.7556
0.6458
0.1098
lambda =
-1.5831e-17
flag =
0
After more tests and investigations I think I can answer that yes, Octave eigs() has some flaw.
eigs(A,1,"sm") likely uses the inverse power iteration method, that is repeatedly solving y=A\x, then x=y, starting with an arbitrary x vector. Obviously there's a problem if A is singular. However:
Matlab eigs() runs fine in such case, and returns the correct eigenvalue (at the machine precision). I don't know what it does, maybe adding a tiny value on the diagonal if the matrix is detected as singular, but it does something better (or at least different) than Octave.
If for some (good or bad) reason Octave's algorithm cannot handle a singular matrix, then this should be reflected in the 3rd return argument ("flag"). Instead, it is always zero as if everything went OK.
eigs(A,1,"sm") is actually equivalent to eigs(A,1,0), and the more general syntax is eigs(A,1,sigma), which means "find the closest eigenvalue to sigma, and the associated eigenvector". For this, the inverse power iteration method is applied with the matrix A-sigma*I. Problem: if sigma is already an exact eigenvalue this matrix is singular by definition. Octave eigs() fails in this case, while Matlab eigs() succeeds. It's kind of weird to have a failure when one knows in advance the exact eigenvalue, or sets it by chance. So the right thing to do in Octave is to test if (A-sigma.I) is singular, and if yes add a tiny value to sigma: eigs(A,1,sigma+eps*norm(A)). Matlab eigs() probably does something like that.

Turing machine for addition and comparison of binary numbers

Good Day everyone!
I am trying to solve this Exercise for learning purpose. Can someone guide me in solving these 3 questions?
Like I tried the 1st question for addition of 2 binary numbers separated by '+'. where I tried 2 numbers addition by representing each number with respective number of 1's or zeros e.g 5 = 1 1 1 1 1 or 0 0 0 0 0 and then add them and the result will also be in the same format as represented but how to add or represent 2 binaries and separating them by +, not getting any clue. Will be head of Turing machine move from left and reach plus sign and then move left and right of + sign? But how will the addition be performed. As far as my little knowledge is concerned TM can not simply add binaries we have to make some logic to represent its binaries like in the case of simple addition of 2 numbers. Similar is the case with comparison of 2 binaries?
Regards
The following program, inspired by the edX / MITx course Paradox and Infinity, shows how to perform binary addition with a Turing machine, where the numbers to be added are input to the Turing machine and are separated by a blank.
The Turing Machine
uses the second number as a counter
decrements the second number by one
increments the first number by one
till the second number becomes 0.
The following animation of the simulation of the Turing machine shows how 13 (binary 1101) and 5 (binary 101) are added to yield 18 (binary 10010).
I'll start with problems 2 and 3 since they are actually easier than problem 1.
We'll assume we have valid input (non-empty binary strings on both sides with no leading zeroes), so we don't need to do any input validation. To check whether the numbers are equal, we can simply bounce back and forth across the = symbol and cross off one digit at a time. If we find a mismatch at any point, we reject. If we have a digit remaining on the left and can't find one on the right, we reject. If we run out of digits on the left and still have some on the right, we reject. Otherwise, we accept.
Q T Q' T' D
q0 0 q1 X right // read the next (or first) symbol
q0 1 q2 X right // of the first binary number, or
q0 = q7 = right // recognize no next is available
q1 0 q1 0 right // skip ahead to the = symbol while
q1 1 q1 1 right // using state to remember which
q1 = q3 = right // symbol we need to look for
q2 0 q2 0 right
q2 1 q2 1 right
q2 = q4 = right
q3 X q3 X right // skip any crossed-out symbols
q3 0 q5 X left // in the second binary number
q3 1,b rej 1 left // then, make sure the next
q4 X q4 X,b right // available digit exists and
q4 0,b rej 0,b left // matches the one remembered
q4 1 q5 X left // otherwise, reject
q5 X q5 X left // find the = while ignoring
q5 = q6 = left // any crossed-out symbols
q6 0 q6 0 left // find the last crossed-out
q6 1 q6 1 left // symbol in the first binary
q6 X q0 X right // number, then move right
// and start over
q7 X q7 X right // we ran out of symbols
q7 b acc b left // in the first binary number,
q7 0,1 rej 0,1 left // make sure we already ran out
// in the second as well
This TM could first sanitize input by ensuring both binary strings are non-empty and contain no leading zeroes (crossing off any it finds).
Do to "greater than", you could easily do the following:
check to see if the length of the first binary number (after removing leading zeroes) is greater than, equal to, or less than the length of the second binary number (after removing leading zeroes). If the first one is longer than the second, accept. If the first one is shorter than the second, reject. Otherwise, continue to step 2.
check for equality as in the other problem, but accept if at any point you have a 1 in the first number and find a 0 in the second. This works because we know there are no leading zeroes, the numbers have the same number of digits, and we are checking digits in descending order of significance. Reject if you find the other mismatch or if you determine the numbers are equal.
To add numbers, the problem says to increment and decrement, but I feel like just adding with carry is going to be not significantly harder. An outline of the procedure is this:
Begin with carry = 0.
Go to least significant digit of first number. Go to state (dig=X, carry=0)
Go to least significant digit of second number. Go to state (sum=(X+Y+carry)%2, carry=(X+Y+carry)/2)
Go after the second number and write down the sum digit.
Go back and continue the process until one of the numbers runs out of digits.
Then, continue with whatever number still has digits, adding just those digits and the carry.
Finally, erase the original input and copy the sum backwards to the beginning of the tape.
An example of the distinct steps the tape might go through:
#1011+101#
#101X+101#
#101X+10X#
#101X+10X=#
#101X+10X=0#
#10XX+10X=0#
#10XX+1XX=0#
#10XX+1XX=00#
#1XXX+1XX=00#
#1XXX+XXX=00#
#1XXX+XXX=000#
#XXXX+XXX=000#
#XXXX+XXX=0000#
#XXXX+XXX=00001#
#XXXX+XXX=0000#
#1XXX+XXX=0000#
#1XXX+XXX=000#
#10XX+XXX=000#
#10XX+XXX=00#
#100X+XXX=00#
#100X+XXX=0#
#1000+XXX=0#
#1000+XXX=#
#10000XXX=#
#10000XXX#
#10000XX#
#10000X#
#10000#
There are two ways to solve the addition problem. Assume your input tape is in the form ^a+b$, where ^ and $ are symbols telling you you've reached the front and back of the input.
You can increment b and decrement a by 1 each step until a is 0, at which point b will be your answer. This is assuming you're comfortable writing a TM that can increment and decrement.
You can implement a full adding TM, using carries as you would if you were adding binary numbers on paper.
For either option, you need code to find the least significant bit of both a and b. The problem specifies that the most significant bit is first, so you'll want to start at + for a and $ for b.
For example, let's say we want to increment 1011$. The algorithm we'll use is find the least significant unmarked digit. If it's a 0, replace it with a 1. If it's a 1, move left.
Start by finding $, moving the read head there. Move the read head to the left.
You see a 1. Move the read head to the left.
You see a 1. Move the read head to the left.
You see a 0. write 1.
Return the read head to $. The binary number is now 1111$.
To compare two numbers, you need to keep track of which values you've already looked at. This is done by extending the alphabet with "marked" characters. 0 could be marked as X, 1 as Y, for example. X means "there's a 0 here, but I've seen it already.
So, for equality, we can start at ^ for a and = for b. (Assuming the input looks like ^a=b$.) The algorithm is to find the start of a and b, comparing the first unmarked bit of each. The first time you get to a different value, halt and reject. If you get to = and $, halt and reject.
Let's look at input ^11=10$:
Read head starts at ^.
Move the head right until we find an unmarked bit.
Read a 1. Write Y. Tape reads ^Y1=10$. We're in a state that represents having read a 1.
Move the head right until we find =.
Move the head right until we find an unmarked bit.
Read a 1. This matches the bit we read before. Write a Y.
Move the head left until we find ^.
Go to step 2.
This time, we'll read a 1 in a and read the 0 in b. We'll halt and reject.
Hope this helps to get you started.

For-Loop for finding combinations of springs?

I need to use a for-loop in a function in order to find spring constants of all possible combinations of springs in series and parallel. I have 5 springs with data therefore I found the spring constant (K) of each in a new matrix by using polyfit to find the slope (using F=Kx).
I have created a function that does so, however it returns data not in a matrix, but as individual outputs. So instead of KP (Parallel)= [1 2 3 4 5] it says KP=1, KP=2, KP=3, etc. Because of this, only the final output is stored in my workspace. Here is the code I have for the function. Keep in mind that the reason I need to use the +2 in the for loop for b is because my original matrix K with all spring constants is ten columns, with every odd number being a 0. Ex: K=[1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5] --- This is because my original dataset to find K (slope) was ten columns wide.
function[KP,KS]=function_name1(K)
L=length(K);
c=1;
for a=1:2:L
for b=a+2:2:L
KP=K(a)+K(b)
KS=1/((1/K(a))+(1/K(b)))
end
end
c=c+1;
and then a program calling that function
[KP,KS]=function_name1(K);
What I tried: - Suppressing and unsuppressing lines of code (unsuccessful)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
hmmm...
your code seems workable, but you aren't dealing with things in the most practical manner
I'd start be redimensioning K so that it makes sense, that is that it's 5 spaces wide instead of your current 10 - you'll see why in a minute.
Then I'd adjust KP and KS to the size that you want (I'm going to do a 5X5 as that will give all the permutations - right now it looks like you are doing some triangular thing, I wouldn't worry too much about space unless you were to do this for say 50,000 spring constants or so)
So my code would look like this
function[KP,KS]=function_name1(K)
L=length(K);
KP = zeros(L);
KS = zeros(l);
c=1;
for a=1:L
for b=1:L
KP(a,b)=K(a)+K(b)
KS(a,b)=1/((1/K(a))+(1/K(b)))
end
end
c=c+1;
then when you want the parallel combination of springs 1 and 4 KP(1,4) or KP(4,1) will do the trick

Binary to standard digit?

I'm going to make a computer in Minecraft. I understand how to build a computer where it can make binary operations but I want the outputs to be displayed as standard integer numbers. How you "convert" the binaries into standard digits? Is there any chart for that? And the digits will be shown like in old calculators; with 7 lines.
--
| |
--
| |
--
In electronics, what you need is called a "binary to binary coded decimal" converter. "Binary coded decimal" is the set of bits needed to produce a number on a 7 segment display. Here's a PDF describing how one of these chips works. Page 3 of the PDF shows the truth table needed to do the conversion as well as a picture of all of the NAND gates that implement it in hardware. You can use the truth table to build the set of boolean expressions needed in your program.
0 = 0
1 = 1
10 = 2
11 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 5
110 = 6
111 = 7
...
Do you see the pattern? Here's the formula:
number = 2^0 * (rightmost digit)
+ 2^1 * (rightmost-but-1 digit
+ 2^2 * (rightmost-but-2 digit) + ...
Maybe what you are looking for is called BCD or Binary Coded Decimal. There is a chart and a karnaugh map for it that has been used for decades. a quick Google search for it gave me this technical page
http://circuitscan.homestead.com/files/digelec/bcdto7seg.htm
How are you trying to build the computer?
Maybe that key word can at least help you find what you need. :)
Your problem has two parts:
Convert a binary number into digits, that is do a binary to BCD conversion.
Convert a digit into a set of segments to activate.
For the latter you can use a table that assigns the bitmap of active segments to each digit.
I think's that's two different questions.
There isn't a "binary string of 0/1" to integer conversion built in - you would normally just write your own to loop over the string and detect each power of 2.
YOu can also write your own 7segment LED display - it's a little tricky because it's on multiple lines, but would be an interesting excersize.
Alternatively most GUIs have an LCD font,Qt certainly does

Rot13 for numbers

EDIT: Now a Major Motion Blog Post at http://messymatters.com/sealedbids
The idea of rot13 is to obscure text, for example to prevent spoilers. It's not meant to be cryptographically secure but to simply make sure that only people who are sure they want to read it will read it.
I'd like to do something similar for numbers, for an application involving sealed bids. Roughly I want to send someone my number and trust them to pick their own number, uninfluenced by mine, but then they should be able to reveal mine (purely client-side) when they're ready. They should not require further input from me or any third party.
(Added: Note the assumption that the recipient is being trusted not to cheat.)
It's not as simple as rot13 because certain numbers, like 1 and 2, will recur often enough that you might remember that, say, 34.2 is really 1.
Here's what I'm looking for specifically:
A function seal() that maps a real number to a real number (or a string). It should not be deterministic -- seal(7) should not map to the same thing every time. But the corresponding function unseal() should be deterministic -- unseal(seal(x)) should equal x for all x. I don't want seal or unseal to call any webservices or even get the system time (because I don't want to assume synchronized clocks). (Added: It's fine to assume that all bids will be less than some maximum, known to everyone, say a million.)
Sanity check:
> seal(7)
482.2382 # some random-seeming number or string.
> seal(7)
71.9217 # a completely different random-seeming number or string.
> unseal(seal(7))
7 # we always recover the original number by unsealing.
You can pack your number as a 4 byte float together with another random float into a double and send that. The client then just has to pick up the first four bytes. In python:
import struct, random
def seal(f):
return struct.unpack("d",struct.pack("ff", f, random.random() ))[0]
def unseal(f):
return struct.unpack("ff",struct.pack("d", f))[0]
>>> unseal( seal( 3))
3.0
>>> seal(3)
4.4533985422978706e-009
>>> seal(3)
9.0767582382536571e-010
Here's a solution inspired by Svante's answer.
M = 9999 # Upper bound on bid.
seal(x) = M * randInt(9,99) + x
unseal(x) = x % M
Sanity check:
> seal(7)
716017
> seal(7)
518497
> unseal(seal(7))
7
This needs tweaking to allow negative bids though:
M = 9999 # Numbers between -M/2 and M/2 can be sealed.
seal(x) = M * randInt(9,99) + x
unseal(x) =
m = x % M;
if m > M/2 return m - M else return m
A nice thing about this solution is how trivial it is for the recipient to decode -- just mod by 9999 (and if that's 5000 or more then it was a negative bid so subtract another 9999). It's also nice that the obscured bid will be at most 6 digits long. (This is plenty security for what I have in mind -- if the bids can possibly exceed $5k then I'd use a more secure method. Though of course the max bid in this method can be set as high as you want.)
Instructions for Lay Folk
Pick a number between 9 and 99 and multiply it by 9999, then add your bid.
This will yield a 5 or 6-digit number that encodes your bid.
To unseal it, divide by 9999, subtract the part to the left of the decimal point, then multiply by 9999.
(This is known to children and mathematicians as "finding the remainder when dividing by 9999" or "mod'ing by 9999", respectively.)
This works for nonnegative bids less than 9999 (if that's not enough, use 99999 or as many digits as you want).
If you want to allow negative bids, then the magic 9999 number needs to be twice the biggest possible bid.
And when decoding, if the result is greater than half of 9999, ie, 5000 or more, then subtract 9999 to get the actual (negative) bid.
Again, note that this is on the honor system: there's nothing technically preventing you from unsealing the other person's number as soon as you see it.
If you're relying on honesty of the user and only dealing with integer bids, a simple XOR operation with a random number should be all you need, an example in C#:
static Random rng = new Random();
static string EncodeBid(int bid)
{
int i = rng.Next();
return String.Format("{0}:{1}", i, bid ^ i);
}
static int DecodeBid(string encodedBid)
{
string[] d = encodedBid.Split(":".ToCharArray());
return Convert.ToInt32(d[0]) ^ Convert.ToInt32(d[1]);
}
Use:
int bid = 500;
string encodedBid = EncodeBid(bid); // encodedBid is something like 54017514:4017054 and will be different each time
int decodedBid = DecodeBid(encodedBid); // decodedBid is 500
Converting the decode process to a client side construct should be simple enough.
Is there a maximum bid? If so, you could do this:
Let max-bid be the maximum bid and a-bid the bid you want to encode. Multiply max-bid by a rather large random number (if you want to use base64 encoding in the last step, max-rand should be (2^24/max-bid)-1, and min-rand perhaps half of that), then add a-bid. Encode this, e.g. through base64.
The recipient then just has to decode and find the remainder modulo max-bid.
What you want to do (a Commitment scheme) is impossible to do client-side-only. The best you could do is encrypt with a shared key.
If the client doesn't need your cooperation to reveal the number, they can just modify the program to reveal the number. You might as well have just sent it and not displayed it.
To do it properly, you could send a secure hash of your bid + a random salt. That commits you to your bid. The other client can commit to their bid in the same way. Then you each share your bid and salt.
[edit] Since you trust the other client:
Sender:
Let M be your message
K = random 4-byte key
C1 = M xor hash(K) //hash optional: hides patterns in M xor K
//(you can repeat or truncate hash(K) as necessary to cover the message)
//(could also xor with output of a PRNG instead)
C2 = K append M //they need to know K to reveal the message
send C2 //(convert bytes to hex representation if needed)
Receiver:
receive C2
K = C2[:4]
C1 = C2[4:]
M = C1 xor hash(K)
Are you aware that you need a larger 'sealed' set of numbers than your original, if you want that to work?
So you need to restrict your real numbers somehow, or store extra info that you don't show.
One simple way is to write a message like:
"my bid is: $14.23: aduigfurjwjnfdjfugfojdjkdskdfdhfddfuiodrnfnghfifyis"
All that junk is randomly-generated, and different every time.
Send the other person the SHA256 hash of the message. Have them send you the hash of their bid. Then, once you both have the hashes, send the full message, and confirm that their bid corresponds to the hash they gave you.
This gives rather stronger guarantees than you need - it's actually not possible from them to work out your bid before you send them your full message. However, there is no unseal() function as you describe.
This simple scheme has various weaknesses that a full zero-knowledge scheme would not have. For example, if they fake you out by sending you a random number instead of a hash, then they can work out your bid without revealing their own. But you didn't ask for bullet-proof. This prevents both accidental and (I think) undetectable cheating, and uses only a commonly-available command line utility, plus a random number generator (dice will do).
If, as you say, you want them to be able to recover your bid without any further input from you, and you are willing to trust them only to do it after posting their bid, then just encrypt using any old symmetric cipher (gpg --symmetric, perhaps) and the key, "rot13". This will prevent accidental cheating, but allow undetectable cheating.
One idea that poped into my mind was to maybe base your algorithm on the mathematics
used for secure key sharing.
If you want to give two persons, Bob and Alice, half a key each so
that only when combining them they will be able to open whatever the key locks, how do you do that? The solution to this comes from mathematics. Say you have two points A (-2,2) and B (2,0) in a x/y coordinate system.
|
A +
|
C
|
---+---+---+---|---+---B---+---+---+---
|
+
|
+
If you draw a straight line between them it will cross the y axis at exactly one single point, C (0,1).
If you only know one of the points A or B it is impossible to tell where it will cross.
Thus you can let the points A and B be the shared keys which when combined will reveal the y-value
of the crossing point (i.e. 1 in this example) and this value is then typically used as
a real key for something.
For your bidding application you could let seal() and unseal() swap the y-value between the C and B points
(deterministic) but have the A point vary from time to time.
This way seal(y-value of point B) will give completely different results depending on point A,
but unseal(seal(y-value of point B)) should return the y-value of B which is what you ask for.
PS
It is not required to have A and B on different sides of the y-axis, but is much simpler conceptually to think of it this way (and I recommend implementing it that way as well).
With this straight line you can then share keys between several persons so that only two of
them are needed to unlock whatever. It is possible to use curve types other then straight lines to create other
key sharing properties (i.e. 3 out of 3 keys are required etc).
Pseudo code:
encode:
value = 2000
key = random(0..255); // our key is only 2 bytes
// 'sealing it'
value = value XOR 2000;
// add key
sealed = (value << 16) | key
decode:
key = sealed & 0xFF
unsealed = key XOR (sealed >> 16)
Would that work?
Since it seems that you are assuming that the other person doesn't want to know your bid until after they've placed their own, and can be trusted not to cheat, you could try a variable rotation scheme:
from random import randint
def seal(input):
r = randint(0, 50)
obfuscate = [str(r)] + [ str(ord(c) + r) for c in '%s' % input ]
return ':'.join(obfuscate)
def unseal(input):
tmp = input.split(':')
r = int(tmp.pop(0))
deobfuscate = [ chr(int(c) - r) for c in tmp ]
return ''.join(deobfuscate)
# I suppose you would put your bid in here, for 100 dollars
tmp = seal('$100.00') # --> '1:37:50:49:49:47:49:49' (output varies)
print unseal(tmp) # --> '$100.00'
At some point (I think we may have already passed it) this becomes silly, and because it is so easy, you should just use simple encryption, where the message recipient always knows the key - the person's username, perhaps.
If the bids are fairly large numbers, how about a bitwise XOR with some predetermined random-ish number? XORing again will then retrieve the original value.
You can change the number as often as you like, as long as both client and server know it.
You could set a different base (like 16, 17, 18, etc.) and keep track of which base you've "sealed" the bid with...
Of course, this presumes large numbers (> the base you're using, at least). If they were decimal, you could drop the point (for example, 27.04 becomes 2704, which you then translate to base 29...)
You'd probably want to use base 17 to 36 (only because some people might recognize hex and be able to translate it in their head...)
This way, you would have numbers like G4 or Z3 or KW (depending on the numbers you're sealing)...
Here's a cheap way to piggyback off rot13:
Assume we have a function gibberish() that generates something like "fdjk alqef lwwqisvz" and a function words(x) that converts a number x to words, eg, words(42) returns "forty two" (no hyphens).
Then define
seal(x) = rot13(gibberish() + words(x) + gibberish())
and
unseal(x) = rot13(x)
Of course the output of unseal is not an actual number and is only useful to a human, but that might be ok.
You could make it a little more sophisticated with words-to-number function that would also just throw away all the gibberish words (defined as anything that's not one of the number words -- there are less than a hundred of those, I think).
Sanity check:
> seal(7)
fhrlls hqufw huqfha frira afsb ht ahuqw ajaijzji
> seal(7)
qbua adfshua hqgya ubiwi ahp wqwia qhu frira wge
> unseal(seal(7))
sueyyf udhsj seven ahkua snsfo ug nuhdj nwnvwmwv
I know this is silly but it's a way to do it "by hand" if all you have is rot13 available.