|WikiProject Cryptography / Computer science|
|To-do list for Lorenz cipher:|
|Priority Lorenz SZ 40/42|
This page certainly must be renamed to Lorenz cipher
-- JidGom 11:15, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I created a redirect instead. MattH 00:41, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with JidGom, so I will move it. It seems that common names should be article titles, while technical (eg, binomial nomenclature) names should be bolded in the article. Feel free to move back if you disagree, since I am not familiar with the subject of this article anyway. JianLi 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oops I messed up! I moved it to Lorenz Cipher. Can an admin move it to Lorenz cipher? JianLi 17:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Cipher vs Cyper
This is wrong. Cypher is not even a word (but it's the name of a character in the movie The Matrix ;-)) and is spelled cipher all over the article. That's a typo that hasn't been caught soon enough. Just rename that damn article.
-- JidGom 08:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Cypher is a mainly British variant of cipher. We don't change such spellings. -- Someone else 08:32, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Hey, all. The cypher v cipher question has had a considerable airing at Talk:Cryptography. Some changes were made in the WP spelling list to accomodate both, and their variants. *y* is indeed mostly British and probably being displaced in favor of *i*, but both are still in live use, and so acceptable spelling. Since this is English, in which marine animals with fins may be legimately spelled ghoti, in GBS' famous example, Ms Fidditch was and remains a little out of step with the actual language. So is (eternally) Nero Wolfe. Until god intervenes and cleans up English orthography, we're just going to have to live with the long ago decision to start writing the language before the phonemic shifts more or less finished. Insanity, of course, but sanctioned by custom. Did Burke approve? ww 16:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I know the policy is to allow both spellings (look, cypher is not a british variant, ok? Even us Brits think it looks archaic), but for consistency, I'm ignoring that and changing it to cipher... mwahahaha --Birkett
- Ok, I'm sorry. I've stopped now. Birkett 17:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh. People once upon a time chose to use this spelling; however, nobody uses the "cypher" spelling any more when writing about cryptography (have a look at the booklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/Cipher vs Cypher). The only reason we have it on Wikipedia at all is because a major contributer (User:Ww) uses it. — Matt 23:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, if it's largely one person who uses it, can't a vote be held or something like that? Then if the majority of people who are involved actually do prefer cipher, I can help change it again... Birkett
- Ahem. May I point you all at this page, which is an image reproduction of the relevant page from the GC&CS Cryptographic Dictionary (1944), where you may find the following entry (reproduced verbatim):
- CYPHER: see cipher.
- I believe this is fairly conclusive? Mr. Alan Turing himself has spoken! :-) Noel (talk) 21:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Was Colossus a computer
The Colossus was not a "programmable computer" as we think of them; in Brian Randall, Colossus: Godfather of the Computer he writes:
- "there is no question of it being an actual stored program computer." (emphasis his)
- By the way, where might I find the above reference by Randall? (I'm trying to build up my Colossus reading list). — Matt Crypto 19:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yah, I didn't want to spam references over every page in sight; some do naturally fall onto more than one page, but in general I'm trying to keep them reasonable in length.
- PS: This whole "was Colossus a computer" thing is something I want to go into more, but I will do so at Talk:Colossus computer. Noel (talk) 21:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've hacked together a draft logical diagram of the Lorenz machine using Inkscape. Any comments? (I'd like to find an actual Wikipedia illustrator to render the final version of the diagram). — Matt Crypto 14:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the value of this break was higher than that of Enigma's.
Gil Hayward's obituary says he "proved crucial to the successful development of Tunny and Colossus."
See: Hayward, Gil (1993), "Operation Tunny", in Hinsley, F.H.; Stripp, Alan, Codebreakers: The inside story of Bletchley Park, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 175 – 192, ISBN 978-0-19-280132-6 --TedColes (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No Colossus computers survived
Rebuilding Colossus"In 1993 I gathered together all the information available. This consisted of eight wartime photographs taken of Colossus in 1945 plus some fragments of circuit diagrams which some engineers had kept quite illegally, as engineers nearly always do. The original drawings of the mechanical assemblies had been deliberately burnt in 1960." So there was no remaining Colossus to work from after the order for them to be deliberately dismantled, for some odd reason. The idea was to remove all trace, it's established there was a need to work from diagrams and there is no mention that any were kept for any amount of time, which would be surprising if Prime Minister Winston Churchill specifically ordered the Colossus computers to be destroyed.Overagainst (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)