Talk:Frequency analysis (cryptanalysis)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
Frequency analysis (cryptanalysis) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
To-do list for Frequency analysis (cryptanalysis): | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
Contents |
[edit] TH?
I was not aware that "TH" was an "exceedingly uncommon" letter combination in English. Apparently people very rarely use words such as "the", "this", "there", and "that".
The page mentions "TH" as common, not uncommon
-
- Actually, at the time I wrote the above, the text said, "Likewise, ST, NG and QU are common combinations, while TH, XT, NZ and QJ are exceedingly uncommon, or "impossible"." So you see, it did list TH as uncommon. However, looking back on it I should have just edited the article. My only defense is that this was over 2 years ago. Roachmeister 14:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
"XT" isn't "impossible" either. Look at the word "extra"...
Edit the page if you find errors in it then.
[edit] misteaks
The spelling misteaks was deliberate as a self illustration. Should be put back? Perhaps italicized? ww 15:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that spelling "mistake" as "misteak" really increases the credibility of Wikipedia as a reference work...— Matt 19:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Spoiler
Just solved the example for fun and decided that it'd be even more fun to spoil it for others. So here's the plaintext:
HEREUPONLEGRANDAROSEWITHAGRAVEANDSTATELYAIRANDBROUGHTMETHEBEETLEFROMAGLASSCASEI NWHICHITWASENCLOSEDITWASABEAUTIFULSCARABAEUSANDATTHATTIMEUNKNOWNTONATURALISTSOF COURSEAGREATPRIZEINASCIENTIFICPOINTOFVIEWTHEREWERETWOROUNDBLACKSPOTSNEARONEEXTR EMITYOFTHEBACKANDALONGONENEARTHEOTHERTHESCALESWEREEXCEEDINGLYHARDANDGLOSSYWITHA LLTHEAPPEARANCEOFBURNISHEDGOLDTHEWEIGHTOFTHEINSECTWASVERYREMARKABLEANDTAKINGALL THINGSINTOCONSIDERATIONICOULDHARDLYBLAMEJUPITERFORHISOPINIONRESPECTINGIT
I guess it's meant to be split this way into sentences:
Here upon Legrand. Arose with a grave and stately air and brought me the beetle from a glass case in which it was enclosed. It was a beautiful scarabaeus and at that time unknown to naturalists of course. A great prize in a scientific point of view. There were two round black spots near one extremity of the back and a long one near the other. The scales were exceedingly hard and glossy with all the appearance of burnished gold. The weight of the insect was very remarkable and taking all things into consideration I could hardly blame Jupiter for his opinion respecting it.
The example nicely illustrates the weakness of this class of ciphers, as even I could solve this one in a few minutes :-) Much more fun than crosswords, why don't they publish these in the papers instead? (Oh, and I was expecting the message to switch to "PWNED BY XXX <censored extreme vulgarity> HAHAHAHAHAHA" in the middle, but sadly, it didn't) 82.103.198.180 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cryptography?
Weird that this title is on cryptography. I would have expected this sort of stuff at frequency of letters but it is odd that this page also discusses this. I was expecting discussion of the frequency spectrum here. BigNate37(T) 15:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- This comment was made back when the page was at frequency analysis; that's now a disambig and this is frequency analysis (cryptanalysis). BigNate37(T) 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
