Talk:Cryptonomicon

Spoiler warning necessary?

Umm why is there a spoiler warning here?? --Anonymous

Yeah, it doesn't seem necessary at the moment. — Matt 00:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could someone explain the ending?

Although the book was quite long, I found it enjoyable until the end. Could someone explain the plot outline more? They basically melted the gold, and it flowed out...end of story? --75.72.193.116 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Solitaire Algorithm?

What page in Cryptonomicon is the Pontifex/Solitaire Algorithm explained on? --Anonymous

Isn't it in an appendix? --— Matt Crypto 12:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correct- it is also explained more informally in the text, when Waterhouse is imprisoned in a Phillipine prison, and there is also provided a functioning Perl script which a reader could work out the details. -- Maru Dubshinki 06:31 PM Monday, 14 March 2005

Citing

What is the source for the comment that Neal Stephenson thought the Necronomicon was first mentioned in Evil Dead? I am skeptical. --Ubermonkey 21:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the Cryptonomicon FAQ, Stephenson didn't get the name from Evil Dead, but rather made it up whole cloth, with possibly some subconscious influence from the Cyphernomicon. Since the Evil Dead assertion is not cited, and the other is, I've search-and-replaced. -- Maru Dubshinki 07:10 PM Monday, 14 March 2005

Steganographically hide code?

So a recent revision claims that the numerous typos scattered throughout actuall constitute a code. I am skeptical, since such a code could very easily be messed up by the inevitable unintended typos, and since I've never heard it before, and since googling extensively shows nothing, and since there is no sourcing for this claim. I am removing it. -- Maru Dubshinki 12:10 AM Saturday, 19 March 2005

I am rather surprised your "googling extensively" turned up nothing, because I was able to find multiple references to this on the Internet with the most minimal Google searching. The original text by User:68.55.87.96 read:

Many readers have noted a large number of seeming typographical errors, but these are not, in fact, errors. The typos are the ciphertext of a plaintext that Stephenson has embedded in the novel.

I have rewritten this to:

The original hardcover edition of Cryptonomicon had numerous typos, and there has been widespread speculation that these typos were deliberate and constitute a steganographically hidden code.

as well as provided three citations. —Lowellian (talk) 12:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

My search was for "cryptonomicon steganographic typos" or variants thereof, which don't turn up those needles within a haystack. I am still skeptical, since one of those cites claims Stephenson disavowed putting in a code... but as long as it is cited, and characterized properly, I have no grief with such a section. --Maru 17:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan Brown reference

" Dan Brown's Digital Fortress is confirmed to have a hidden code" - per the link, there is a cipher, but it's not hidden

Sealand vs Brunei vs Kinakuta

I removed the claim that Kinakuta resembles Sealand in international status as, well, it doesn't. Kinakuta is fairly similiar to Brunei, which is an independent state with diplomatic relations and all the stuff which goes along with being a fully-fledged country - you know, membership of the UN and other international treaty bodies. Kinakuta's international status is similiar to Brunei's - it's universally recognised as a sovereign nation - unlike Sealand, which isn't. -- Mpk 09:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC) And it's mentioned in the book that Kinakuta Sultan is Brunei Sultan's cousin

Necronomicon?

Okay, in one paragraph it says that the title is a reference to Necronomicon and in the next paragraph it said that he didn't know about Necronomicon when he made the title? How can you reference something you don't even know about? That doesn't make any sense! -- Masterzora 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Because of Cryptomnesia, a disturbingly coincidental word in this case. ;) -Quiddity 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't want to hear the lizard story, Sergeant!"

Should we mention the similarity between Shaftoe's vision of a man-eating lizard at Guadalcanal and the real-life legend of man-eating crocodiles at the Battle of Ramree Island? Is the similarity coincidental? --Hoziron 07:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past Stephenson; and it is interesting in its own right. --maru (talk) contribs 07:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking Shaftoe's lizard is more likely a Komodo_dragon, native to that general part of the world.

Charlene and Rabbi Kahn

I added Charlene into the modern-day list of characters. I can't recall her last name and I'm not going to read through the whole thing again for the sake of Wikipedia. Anybody know it, or know if it's even mentioned?

I'm also wondering if Rabbi Kahn should be added. He's just a minor character in this book, but I'm almost absolutely sure that he's the same character as Solomon Kohan in The Baroque Cycle. (Interesting since he's the one that proposes the message which would kill Root and Shaftoe.) Can anyone confirm this or am I way out in left field on this one? Wyatt Riot 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think Charlene's surname is ever mentioned. Apart from the coincidence of names, and Kahn/Kohan is a pretty common name, I don't think there's any reason to suppose they're the same person. Kahn is described as being very old and wizened - but so what? Kohan isn't described well - the only thing I remember is that he has very light grey eyes, as though the colour had been washed out of them. No mention of that with Kahn. I think Kahn is just an old Jewish guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.83.156.199 (talk)

Fictional books category

I removed the "fictional books" category, because the article placed into the category is about the real book and not the fictional book described inside it. At first I thought the category was added because someone didn't understand what "fictional book" meant, but now I understand what happened. I still see the categorization as incorrect, and believe it would only be correct if used in a separate article about the fictional book, like the article about Necronomicon. The article The Dunwich Horror, in which The Necronomicon appears, does not itself go into the fictional books category. However, if someone feels strongly the other way, go ahead and put it back. Phr (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Misleading article to say the least.

"Several pages are spent explaining in detail some of the concepts behind cryptography"

I must have missed that part. Stephenson doesn't even seem to understand the difference between symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. At one point he talks about using a key and a function to "automatically generate a one-time pad". If it can be generated simply by running a short key through an algorithm, then it's not a one-time pad.

"Stephenson includes a precise description of (and indeed a Perl script for) the Solitaire cipher"

The only "precise description" in the book was actually written by Bruce Schneier (in fact, it's the only real information about a crypto algorithm in the entire book). Stephenson simply makes one of his characters repeat it.

"some highly technical and detailed descriptions of modern cryptography"

Again, I must have missed that. He doesn't even describe old cryptography in any detail.

"subjects ranging from prime numbers and modular arithmetic"

He mentions the terms "prime numbers" and "modulo" a few times. That's about the extent to which those "subjects" are covered. Nothing that people with the 7th grade won't already know, if they paid any attention during maths classes.

Then there's the ridiculous "digital signal waveform" that rises and falls vertically, the hard drive getting erased by an undetectable magnet embedded in a door (to be able to erase a hard drive from that far away, it would have to be insanely powerful, and therefore very noticeable) plus several other technical impossibilities and misconceptions.

Which are fine, since this is a work of fiction. But that's not the impression that this Wiki article gives.

Cryptonomicon is a reasonably entertaining war thriller. A "highly technical" (or even accurate) book about cryptanalysis it is not. Also, it does not "follow the exploits of World War II-era cryptographers", contrary to what the first sentence states. It follows the adventures of one cryptanalyst (plus a few soldiers and a priest), whose job consists mainly of preventing the Axis powers from realising their codes have already been broken, not breaking them.

The only chapter that promises to reveal something about WWII cryptanalysis (before Lawrence leaves for Qwghlm) ends abruptly before any actual information is given about it. The next chapter picks up weeks or months later. Even when Randy finally decrypts the infamous "Arethusa" cypher, there is absolutely no mention of the techniques used, or the cypher's properties, apart from "has something to do with zeta functions". Stephenson can spend 10 pages describing how one character eats breakfast cereal, but all the cryptanalysis is either glossed over or happens between chapters (i.e., no description at all).

What this Wiki article does is create false expectations for geeks (who will be disappointed by the lack of depth and basic errors in the book), and cause undue aprehension to "normal" readers, who will think this is a very complex and technical book, when in fact it's just your average Tom Clancy-style war thriller with some technical terms randomly sprinkled on top.

RMN 00:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perl script or perl program?

The article mentions a "perl script"; I have changed this to "perl program", but someone keeps reverting the changes.

The reasons given in the edit summaries on the reversions were "script is the correct designation, see Perl" and "see Scripting language". I reviewed both pages before I made my original change and I believe that the "program" designation is more correct in this case.

I believe that the term "script" implies a large degree of interaction with some outside system. For example, shell scripts are long sequences of Unix commands, strung together with built-in control flow operators. Without the larger Unix system, they do not run at all.

The scripting language article bears out this interpretation. It says "embedding and dependence on a larger system are usually criteria", and that "scripting" is "connecting diverse pre-existing components to accomplish a new related task."

Many Perl programs fit this description, but the program in Cryptonomicon :does not. It is a cryptographic system, reading a plaintext input and calculating an encrypted output, with no connecting of pre-existing components, no embedding or dependence on a larger system.

The Perl page uses the terms "script" and "program" about equally, so there does not seem to be any convention that says that all Perl programs are "scripts". I tried to apply the term that was most appropriate in this particular case.

Accordingly I have reverted the article again to say "program" rather than "script".

-- Dominus 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are simply incorrect in your assumptions. Script is used when the language is interpreted rather than compiled. Perl is almost always interpreted. You can compile it, if for example you are going to running it over and over again on a server. But the average person who downloads the script mentioned are going to run it as a script. Are you a programmer? I am, and nobody calls a perl script a "program". It's simply not the correct usage. IPSOS 04:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the "larger system" it is dependent on is the operating system, without which it cannot ask for input and print output. IPSOS 04:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Simply incorrect" is something you have to argue and prove, not something you can assert. I supported my assertions with quotes from the references that you cited in the edit summaries; you did not.

The scripting language article says that scripting languages are "typically interpreted and can be typed directly from a keyboard. Thus, scripts are often distinguished from programs...". The use of "typically" and "often" is important here; it means that there are exceptions to these generalizations. Many counterexamples come immediately to mind. For example, Java is often compiled to bytecode, which is interpreted by a runtime system. But Java programs are rarely or never referred to as "scripts". Early Pascal systems compiled to P-code, which was then interpreted; Pascal's status as a "programming language" as opposed to a "scripting language" did not change when native machine code compilers were developed.

I don't think the question of whether I am a programmer has any relevance to this issue. My arguments are supported, and yours are not, and that is what is important.

Your assertion that "nobody calls a perl script a 'program"'" is demonstrably false. You cited the article on Perl in your edit summaries. This article is in both the "programming languages" and "scripting languages" categories. It refers to Perl "programs" twenty-two times. Google search for "perl program" estimates that 583,000 documents contain this phrase. Evidently, many people do call Perl scripts "programs".

Your argument about the OS as the "larger system" is manifestly absurd and I cannot believe that you have thought it through. Every program that produces input and output runs under an operating system; if your argument were correct, this would mean that every high-level programming language was a "scripting language" and that every program was a script, except perhaps something like a machine language program on an embedded washing machine controller. I am sure you will agree that this is not the way the term "script" is used.

--Dominus 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant that I know what I'm talking about from experience whereas you are floundering around trying to get experience from reading a Wikipedia page. However, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person, so have it your way. Somebody else who actually knows what they are talking about will fix it sooner or later. IPSOS 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But while your doing your due diligence, ponder this vs. this. Script is used nearly twice as often as program for perl objects. IPSOS 06:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And of course the larger system is the OS. What the hell do you think a bash or other shell script in interacting with, fairies? The difference is that with a compiled language the compiled program code is combined with precompiled library code so that they become seemlessly linked at execution. A perl script remains text and a program called 'perl' runs and interprets it. There is no new file that contains a binary and thus no program. But, go right ahead and change it again. Nothing wrong with basing a change to a Wikipedia article on complete and utter ignorance of a topic! Right? IPSOS 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it, open up a copy of Cryptomomicon, where it says "PERL script" on page 916. I'd say that the author of the script is the best place to turn to discover whether he considers it a script or a program. IPSOS 06:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Otto van Hoek in list of characters

Anonymous user 80.83.156.199 added Otto van Hoek to the list of characters from the World War II era of the novel. I removed it because there is nothing in the text of the book to indicate this. It was then added back by the same user.

The entry is:

• Otto van Hoek, the Flying Dutchman, captain of the sloop Gertrude and previously (in the early 18th century) captain of the East Indiaman Minerva; also involved with the Societas Eruditorum.

I believe this is incorrect. Gertrude's captain is a man named Otto, but this is clearly the character Otto Kivistik previously introduced in the book. There is nothing in the text to indicate that it is meant to be a different character, or that the two Otto's from Cryptonomicon and the Baroque Cycle are the same person.

In fact, searching google for '"otto van hoek" cryptonomicon' only shows up articles about the Baroque Cycle novels or copies of the Cryptonomicon wikipedia page. --James 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous here. Otto Kivistik is aboard Gertrude - and he certainly isn't the same man as Otto van Hoek from the Baroque Cycle - but the crew of Gertrude also includes some unnamed characters. From the book:

"There are five in all. Otto has lost his pot-belly and gone much greyer. Rudy is a completely different man: he has long flowing hair ponytailed down his back, and a surprisingly thick, Viking-like beard, and he appears to have lost his left eye somewhere along the way, because he’s got an actual black patch over it!

"My god," Bischoff says, "pirates!"

The other three men he has never seen before: a Negro with dreadlocks; a brown-skinned, Indian-looking fellow; and a red-headed European."

So that's five men. Otto Kivistik and Rudy von Hacklheber are two of them. None of the other three speak at all. But two of them - the Negro with dreadlocks and the red-headed European - sound very unusual and familiar. Specifically, they sound like Tomba and Otto van Hoek, last seen disappearing out to sea aboard Minerva in 1713, at the end of "The System of the World".

Now, a) the crew of the Minerva were closely linked to Root and the Societas Eruditorum, who also provided the conspiracy with Gertrude in 1945; b) they therefore potentially had access to the secret of alchemy; - and thus immortality - as used by Root, c) Stephenson's already brought in the Wandering Jew, Solomon Kohan (present as a suspiciously long-lived advisor to Peter the Great) so the presence of the other archetypal immortal, the Flying Dutchman, seems a good bet; and d) those descriptions are suspiciously specific if the rest of them are just meant to be colourful minor characters.

I'm at a loss to guess who the Indian-looking fellow is. Maybe he's just some guy.