Talk:Frequency analysis

WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 B Class
 Mid Importance
Field: Probability and statistics
WikiProject Statistics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Cryptography / Computer science  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

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.

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)

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)

I just did it too, fun. I looked the plaintext up; it's an extract from Poe's "The Gold-Bug." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.7.98 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

Frequency analysis (cryptanalysis)Frequency analysis — Latter redirects to former. There is also a Frequency analysis (disambiguation) but other articles on dab page do not take the form "Frequency analysis (xxxxx)". —Aspie rational (talk) 09:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with `*'''Support'''` or `*'''Oppose'''`, then sign your comment with `~~~~`. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

If this is not accepted, then I suggest Frequency analysis (disambiguation)Frequency analysis. Aspie rational (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I take the point of the nomination, it's valid, but it's not the whole story... there's a thing in audio called a frequency analyser, for example, several different devices by this name in fact, and in common English (at least) what they do is frequency analysis I guess. So there's probably lots of room for other articles called frequency analysis, and I would doubt that the meaning in cryptanalysis is the primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Moved. Uncontroversial. Renata (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)