Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
That feats of cryptography can be done using any material. Or rather I'd expect it to be a common conclusion. When you look at quipu, braille, or morse code, does nobody ever think "I wonder what random randomly assorted things might also be an embodied utterance"? Nobody looks to the colors of flowers or the patterns in sounds, they always wait until the mind seizes upon letters and numbers before they go into expect-a-message mode.
What a precocious child you must have been
Not particularly, I was slower than the average child but who happened to have a unique epiphany like every answerer here. I never understood though how people limit their expectations when it comes to communication. If the word "cryptography" here is what throws anyone off, it's not some advanced field of study, it just refers to the physical manifestation of messaging, which a child can get behind. A child will learn any form of communication you provide, from sign language, to flagging, to anything that exists that can be called "patterned" (involving any usage of any of the human senses), just not "top percentage" cryptographers in our writing-centric culture for some reason.
No it doesn't. Cryptography is specifically encoding messages in a way that is hard for someone without the specific secret key to decode, even if they know the methodology.
So much for a non-native English speaker wanting to have some verbal legroom on Lemmy.
You provided a definition that doesn't even loosely resemble the correct one.
There's no need to use words you don't understand, especially when they're wildly unrelated to whatever you're saying. They just add confusion.
You say that like it's that big a leap. In any case, sorry I wasn't 100% linguistically perfect, even post-elaboration. Half of people say I should be concise, the other half says I should elaborate more, so I figured someone would sound unpleased.
Because it's a giant one.
There is no valid interpretation of cryptography that resembles the way you defined it in any way.
Is that based on what you see when you look it up?
cryp·tog·ra·phy
noun
the art of writing or solving codes.
That's a terrible definition, but "codes" is doing the heavy lifting.
It is not a code, in that definition, if it does not require knowledge of a key to decode.
It is literally impossible for anything that doesn't have a secret key to qualify as cryptography. That is the entire defining trait.
no. replacement cyphers are cryptography, too.
The "key" is the mapping of cipher alphabet to message alphabet.
There has to be a secret to be cryptography. The meaning has to be hidden without the secret information (though primitive/weak attempts can have a small enough search space to be brute forced). But the content being hidden without that information is the entirety of what the word means.
How so?
And what do you think I've been talking about this whole time if not forms of substitution?