> it is, let's face it, really unlike that there's a backdoor expressed in the permutation of universal mathematical constants used in any cryptographic standard.
Why? I mean, there's plenty of reasons to be skeptical of backdoors in standards in the first place, but why do you consider it especially unlikely for any hypothetical backdoor to hide in the details of "nothing up my sleeve" numbers?
Not a mathematician but have a background in engineering. Some damn constants are everywhere and have too many useful properties. Take "e" for instance. I'll be damned if that isn't a terribly versatile number.
Why? I mean, there's plenty of reasons to be skeptical of backdoors in standards in the first place, but why do you consider it especially unlikely for any hypothetical backdoor to hide in the details of "nothing up my sleeve" numbers?